User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Thanks for your input

Well, you seem to have found my meticulous analysis before I could nudge you to towards it! Anyhow, thanks for your further input, and definitely look to see me seeking further advice on those "gray" areas. as an editor, I must admit I may have fired off a few tags I wasn't sure about (heck, NPP is a race these days - it really shouldn't be), but as an admin, I won't be shooting from the hip. I will stand by my pledge not to delete anything that's not clearly, plain-as-day within criteria until I gain a greater understanding of them. anyhow, I appreciate the time you spent on reviewing my RFA and your comments on it (both for and against). imo, it's important in the RFA process that admins bring to light the deleted contributions that editors can't see. I've left some templated thank-spam for you below =) see you again soon! xenocidic (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Not a barnstar"

Thank you so much for the kind words, it really means a lot to me.  :) :) :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Jason Parks page

Hi,

I just created this page (my first wikipedia entry :)) and it got deleted as advertising. I wanted to add a page about Shi Fu Parks as he is an accomplished Shaolin master and there are very few in the world who both have lineage and amazing teachings. I've learnt under him for many years now, and I guess I thought it would be interesting to have him on Wikipedia, but I can understand that maybe what I posted was a bit much. Any recommendations as to how to fix the tone of my post, or is it simply inappropriate content?

Thank you, I know how much you guys work to keep Wikipedia from being too crackful, Pia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greebogreebo (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's not necessarily inappropriate to include an article on him, though since you obviously have a personal connection to him you would need to be very careful to be neutral in tone and to only include reliably sourced information. One of the problems when you have a personal connection to an article's subject is that you may be tempted to include information that you know to be true but can't verify. "Verifiability" is one of the core content policies on Wikipedia; we try to make sure that everything here can be substantiated by our readers. This is important because, since anyone can add material, they can't necessarily trust our content otherwise. Sadly, not everybody who adds content here is telling the truth. :/
What you would want to look at first, though, is our notability guideline individuals. In order to establish an article on this man, you should demonstrate that he is notable by those guidelines, which almost always means demonstrating that he is being talked about by sources like magazines, newspapers, and respectable unaffiliated websites. If you aren't able to demonstrate that he meets that guideline, then whether the material is regarded as promotional or not the article is likely to be deleted, either through the speedy criterion specifically for unimportant biographies or one of the other steps in the deletion process.
I appreciate your checking on this, and I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you. I am not that knowledgeable about martial arts, but I may be able to help you determine if your sources meet guidelines and if an article is likely to survive. Although we do have to keep an eye on articles (I like the way you put it :)), we do appreciate your contribution as we rely on just that very impulse to give us new content. (Since this is your first Wikipedia entry, I'll risk pointing out the obvious, that there are all kinds of policies guidelines tucked behind the colored text above.) I hope you won't let this experience discourage you, and even if you decide that this article may not be appropriate at this time, hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Followup on Jason Parks article

Thanks heaps for the great response. I'll go and read up on everything and then reassess. I may try to put something up again in a few days if he meets the guidelines and if so I'll be sure to write it in a neutral tone and reference everything. Thanks! Have a great day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greebogreebo (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You, too. :) Good luck with it, and please do let me know if I can offer additional feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another question.....

Can you look at Fubixing, please? I tagged it as blatant copyright violation, (and it got deleted as that) because he posted a transcript of a copyrighted video. Does that still count as copyright violation? Or should I have tagged it with something else, or PROD-ed it? Thanks for you help, J.delanoygabsanalyze 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You do find the most interesting situations. :D While I'm not a copyright attorney, I do believe that a transcript qualifies as a derivative work, which is the reason why we cannot link to those ubiquitous lyrics sites that contain the lyrics to songs. Even if somebody sat down and listened for themselves, the lyrics remain copyrighted, and only the copyright holder has the legal right to create and spread derivative works. So, yes, that was a good tag, imo. I would have deleted it, too. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the information regarding the removal of erroneously placed speedy deletion tags on the 1400 BC in art article today. Now I know! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call

I just want to compliment you on the great wisdom and discernment you exhibited in handling the closing of this afd. --MPerel 07:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence
for your excellent thorough analysis and effort exerted to achieve a wise and reasonable solution at the Jews Against Zionism AfD --MPerel 08:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! That means quite a lot to me, as I found that easily among the most complicated and time-consuming AfDs I've ever attempted to close. :) I believe by the time the merge was finished, it had taken about two hours. Mind you, it helps quite a lot when AfD contributors make such clear and cogent arguments. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk)

David Warburton

I do not agree with your logic for removal and view such disrespect as an insult to the him. David has completed many hours of community based work and in my opinion should be rewarded for his efforts. He has become a cult icon in the surrounding regions and i personally view such deletion as placing a detriment on his character.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiyeahh (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) While I'm glad to hear that David, inventor of the "warbidance", enjoys so much local acclaim,I'm afraid that he may not yet meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. Take a look at WP:BIO to see the kinds of things that Wikipedia looks for in articles related to people. If there are reliable sources to verify that he meets those guidelines, then Wikipedia would welcome a serious article about him. Meanwhile, though we appreciate your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia, articles are intended to be serious. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A7 reply

Hi there. Thanks for your message. With that article when I saw it, I just knew it wasn't notable, but was sort of related to people, at least in the sense that real people operate the characters, if that makes sense. Sorry for getting it wrong, I'll know for next time just to mark it as AfD or stick a notablility tag on. Ged UK (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Diamond Bar Crunch and I-710

Hi, thanks for removing pink tag from my comments. Diamond Bar Cruch is rarity in Southern California, locate almost at West Covina. You ever been to California before, and do you work on Highway pages. NE2 just puts pink tags on article he thinks is bad. About the 710 Frwy extension, do you think is possible? Becasue I don't think so. 710 even is north 9 mi-extension can damage Aquaruim of Pacific. You you know about the 710 Frwy story?--Freewayguy Talk Contribs 19:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No problem, as it was not a standard speedy deletion criterion. If the nominator feels strongly that the page doesn't belong, he or she may decide to go through MfD, but I'm not sure what reason he or she wanted the deletion in the first place.
I do not work on highway pages, and I have not been to California since I was a baby. :) I live on the opposite coast and am not familiar with freeway issues in that region. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

Hi there. Could you please take care of the following CSDs for pages I (unwisely) created?

All of this was done months ago, and I have since decided that, however mild the harm to the project might be, it is still non-zero harm and so they should be taken care of. Thanks so much! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jay. No problem. It's done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much.
On a side note, the Anglophilately thing accidentally turned out to be a bit of a case study of the ridiculous and terrifying power of Wikipedia mirrors to amplify destructive edits. When I (foolishly) created that article eight months ago, there were zero Google hits for Anglophilately -- and now...
It kind of makes one shudder to think about what happens when WP:BLP concerns go undetected... :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I had one here on my very talk page--although it wasn't a typical BLP concern in that the subject introduced it himself. Check it out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear! That thread almost gives me second thoughts about using my real name to edit Wikipedia. Heh, oh well.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Korean consonants.jpg

This image is, um, one of those images that somehow appears here on Wikipedia even though it is actually on Commons. Last night (my current time is UTC-4) I was patrolling Recent Changes with Twinkle, and I saw someone create this page with the text "i love you", but they did not upload an image. I have never tagged an image page page for speedy deletion before, so I had no idea which tag to use. I ended up tagging it with CSD I8 (an image which is a bit-for-bit copy of an image on Commons). It has not yet been deleted, but I know that that tag was not entirely correct, because no new image was uploaded. Should I have just tagged it as db-G2? Thanks for your help. J.delanoygabsadds 14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I don't think there's anything wrong with I8 in this case. Either way, I think that an explanation might be a good idea. Too bad there's no room in that template for comments! I think I would have placed an I8 deletion tag manually and either explained my rationale in the edit summary or added a pointer to the talk page and explained in there. In any event, I went ahead and deleted this one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD-G5

I feel that your deletion of User:Ziggy_Sawdust/Avril was not compliant with CSD G5, given that the page had substantial contributions from other users, as far as I can see. My personal opinion is that the page should go, but unless at attempt at rougeness is being made, CSD isn't the way to go... Martinp23 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I deleted that one too hastily. I'll restored it and remove the CSD tag. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There. It's back, and I've removed the CSD tag. :) Feel free to follow whatever other process seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About Wireless Intelligent Answer Sheet

Dear friend, just please tell me how can I convience you that WIAS is my patented invention and as it's going to be manufactured I need to publish it on the net and say to the world what is WIAS and how it works. At the next days my website would be published and you can see more about WIAS. I'm ready to e-mail you my patent in order to see WIAS is mine. Please don't remvoe my article on wiki. Just tell me what i've to do in order not to speedy deletion! --Schahinap (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Your latest version of this article was deleted before I logged in today by another administrator. It seems to me that what you need here is to locate a webhost that is appropriate for this material. There are several policies and guidelines that apply here. First, we have a standard of notability. While there are several other specific factors that may make a topic notable, the standard here is widespread coverage in reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines or independent websites. Also, as I explained at your talk page, Wikipedia is not for promoting material or for publishing original inventions. And, again, it is problematic that you have a clear conflict of interest in this case.
There is no one that I know of disputing that WIAS is your patented invention or that it's going to be manufactured. At issue here, though, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of previously published information. It is not here to spread information about new products or inventions. If at some point WIAS meets the notability guidelines, it is quite likely that someone will create an article about it. However, that should not be you.
Again, I wish you luck at the youth festival and hope that it will catch on well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

sam & dave, hold on im comin

Dear Moonriddengirl

I am realtively new to wiki and was hoping you could provide some of your expertise. I had some photos I thought were properly annotated with fair use rationale for the sam & dave wiki site. Apparently they werent, so they were taken down

I notice you did a nice fair use for the hold on im comin sam & dave cover. Would you be willing to assist me in re-posting several images to the sam & dave wiki site? I would be happy to send you the images, I just want to make sure the bases are covered with a proper fair use disclosure. They include some pr shots that were distributed publicly, a magazine cover and a a few album covers.

I can be reached at <email blanked for privacy concerns>

thanks in advance

68.121.161.163 (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC) mmstevko

Hi. When working on albums on Wikipedia, I follow the steps listed here to upload an album cover. I have on occasion ventured into the world of book covers, as set out here. That's the extent of it. And even if I were 100% dead familiar with Wikipedia's policies on adding images, I do not know how the sam & dave wiki feels about it. (I spent a few minutes, but couldn't locate a sam & dave wiki. I thought perhaps they might have an image policy page I could find.) What I'm saying here, basically, is that images are not my strong point, and that what I believe to be true of Wikipedia's policies may not apply to another Wiki. Wikipedia:Non-free content even indicates that it applies to the English Wikipedia, which means that it wouldn't necessarily be true on the hundreds of other language Wikipedias run by the Wikimedia Foundation.
So, from what I understand from that policy as applies to English Wikipedia, PR photos and magazine covers may not fit Wikipedia's fair use guidelines for non-free content. That policy says of PR photos, "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." I have no idea when a photo becomes historical. That's one that I would have to ask about myself if I wanted to post the photo here. With the magazine cover, it could come down to how it is used. Wikipedia lists as unusuable "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover" but adds that "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." I would interpret that "may" to mean that if the cover itself is notable and discussed, it's probably okay. For example, Demi Moore made some big waves when she posed nude & pregnant for _Vanity Fair_ in 1991. It still gets press coverage 17 years later.(See here and here.) If I weren't entirely sure if it was notable enough for discussion, I'd probably seek feedback on that, too. As far as album covers are concerned, Wikipedia is okay with their use in articles about the albums, but is not okay with their use in discographies. There are also issues related to the size of the image; Wikipedia requires that they not exceed a certain size to reduce the risk that they will be used to create bootleg covers.
In your position, I would probably look for a help desk or image policy page on the Wiki where your images were removed and ask for assistance there from somebody familiar with the image policies in place there. Failing to find that, I'd try to track down the administrator who deleted them to ask for assistance in figuring it out. On Wikipedia, there is a deletion log to tell users which administrator deleted what.
If I can provide you any more assistance from this end, I would be happy to, but in terms of uploading images on your behalf, I'm not sure I'm the best person for the job. :) If you'd like assistance looking for a help desk or image policy page, feel free to give me the URL for the wiki and I'll see what I can come up with. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page stalker!

So you're like me! Refactor reply - I replied on their talk page, but copied it to my page. Improper usage of the term? As far as getting the hang of things, I've so far only blocked the test accounts (naughty, naughty test accounts), but I've deleted a potentially sensitive revision. Other than that, haven't done much. Was busy yesterday, and still getting my thank-spam out. =) xenocidic (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Great addition to the TPS page there. and you thought you didnt have it in you ;>. i wouldn't mind you taking a quick look at my deletions - I've been really sticking to the non-controversial for now, but what I've been doing is watching some of the more controversial ones, saying in my head what criteria I would've used and seeing if it matches the closing admin's action. I goofed on one of the deletion reasons at -4UTC-15:52, June 6, 2008 (pasted the wrong thing)... no biggie? it was during all that page-move vandalism madness. also, you might be interested in checking out my admin dashboard. Feel free to steal borrow whatever you want, or you can even transclude the page and it should work fine (and then you can benefit from any additions as I improve it ;>). xenocidic (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It all looks good to me. I like your substitution of rationale at J.D. Mann. (And I like that I can discuss this with you with only links, since you can see it yourself. :)) I didn't look at your U2s and your G6s. I looked through all of your A10s and verified that the authors had been warned by the taggers. (So as I could see if you filled in that step when it was missed. It's not required, as it is with G12, but it's jolly good practice. :))
The only one that I would have handled differently is Logan Haffner. It needed to be deleted, but I don't think it technically fit the criterion, even though I see a lot of people tag (and delete) that kind of stuff that way. It made sense to me. :) I myself would have deleted it as a G3, vandalism, as a blatantly unencyclopedic page. (Blatant and obvious misinformation, in this case. Note that the definition of vandalism also includes "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc".) If I delete an article as vandalism, I always make sure that the creator has either a uw-create template left on his or her page (generally I started with Uw-create2 or, if the creation seems to have been more silly than malicious, I'll sometimes leave Uw-joke1. In any event, the article needed to go, and I don't think that the majority of admins addressing CSDs would have any issue whatsoever with your deleting it as G1, though I can think of a couple of regulars at Talk:CSD who would. :)
By the way, I had a look at User talk:Apokolypz to see that the tagger treated it like vandalism (which I think is good), but that talk page really raised my eyebrows. The contributor has one contribution. Seems he is also Tonykeeper (talk · contribs) and Dislecksik (talk · contribs), based on the history of the usertalk page. Very odd.
Occasionally I've goofed on deletion rationales. I don't think it's a big deal, unless it's a case where the creator may later visit the deletion log to learn a reason and be misled. In those situations, we'd probably undelete and redelete with the correct rationale. In this situation, I wouldn't worry about it at all. :D
How is it going with watching to see what other admins are doing? One caveat there: before following suit, you might want to check the admin's talk page to see how often they come up at DRV. :) I can think of a couple of admins who are quite liberal in their application of the tools.
I have myself branched out in the last month to more controversial deletions. I did CSDs for about 7 months before really delving into AfDs. Now, when I have time (busy time at work) and the CSD backlog is small, I'll head over to see what's been hanging around. Naturally, the ones that are hanging around are the ones nobody wants to touch. :)
I've taken a look at your dashboard--seems quite handy! If I can find a good place in my userspace, I may transclude it. Otherwise, I might just link to it and click over to look at it in your place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks moon, I'll definately take those suggestions under advisement. I came across this one today: Tendai Madzorera. Not sure why the writer is requesting deletion, as the article meets the inclusion criteria, in fact, I even found a source via Google News. what is the reccomended course of action in a case like this? (never mind, that news article was for someone else with the same name) P.S. as for the dashboard, I don't know if you noticed it but it has some neat functionality where if there are more than 0 attack pages or wikipedians looking for help, or more than 50 articles needing CSD, those rows turn red. when there are more than 0 empty or user-requested pages for deletion, those rows turn green. xenocidic (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Eep! I didn't look far enough up the page this morning. :) Very cool dashboard stuff. I like snazzy cody things that I can't do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jazz81089's inflammatory personal attack

I don't know why this user keeps violating No personal attack as he left this at his summary field. In this situation, I can't work with continued offender[1] I don't think WP:AGF is effective in this situation. --Appletrees (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, his reverting does not meed the standard of the naming convention for Korea or Koreans (WP:NC-KO), surname always comes first, but he carelessly revert it to Japanese naming convention. That kind of behaviors does not look from good faith--Appletrees (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given him a final warning, as he has now reverted the page twice since his last block. Your second edit was not a reversion, but an obvious effort to create a consensus version, here. I strongly encourage you to find reliable sourcing to put an end to the dispute. Find some source to support the man's genre as a writer or to support what genre the publication is, and you will be in a far better position to persuade others in the content dispute that your opinion is the correct one. There is not a lot else I can do here at the moment. I can protect the page, but a protected page will be saved in whatever version it is in at the time protection is implemented. I do not see that edit summary as a blockable personal attack. The fact that he is himself gaming the system and his filing at ANI shows he knows better, almost. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I also realized that the original version (which means the version before he or the OCN anon edited the article) did have have enough references to explain its publication as manhwa. I've been searching reliable resources since our initial edit warring occurred, but there is very scarce English sources on that. (the term manhwa is more known to France or Germany than the US or English speaking world), so I think I have to translate contents in likelihood of backup for my claim from Korean sources to English. In the process, I'm also getting to know that the animated movie was made from a cooperation by a Japanese and Korean company. So I think I will shape my claim in a better position. However, it would take some time for me to do such things, so we have more time on this. As for his edit summary, I admit that I'm very sensitive and easily getting upset to any verbal attack or incivility. Of course, WP:CIVIL policy should be applied upon me as well. --Appletrees (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I checked the history of the article further and know that I missed Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) or the OCN anon's blanking the info regarding the collaboration with a Korean and Japanese company in the introbox. So anime (the term for Japanese animation) is not fit in the case as well as Jazz claims --Appletrees (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-English sources are fine if there is no English equivalent. WP:V indicates that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citations." I think that sourcing must be your answer here. As far as civility is concerned, I am sympathetic. The general Wikipedia perspective is that unless incivility is severe, it's generally not met with a block unless it's systematic. And I do mean severe. This edit did not receive an immediate block, though the editor was eventually blocked for sockpuppetry. WP:CIVIL suggests ignoring incivility if you can. If you can't, you may want to visit WP:WQA, but I would only go with clear examples of strong incivility. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the expression to Appletrees' conducts was too hard words to recognize mere a criticism, I'm sorry for you all. I am not Engish native speeker, so I am not good at imaging the word's hardness. Simply to say, I only want a citation for Appletrees' edit that the work was translated from manhwa version as WP:source says. So I was astonished of Appletress writings in my notes. To tell the truth, I don't know what can we do in that situation, when I'm not all of them. Jazz81089 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing to do at this point is to civilly discuss your differences at the article's talk page. I'd recommend keeping your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them. Meanwhile, you may want to search for sources as well if you believe that your version is correct, because to this point the label of "manga writer" is no more verified than the label of "manwha writer". Evidently Appletrees is looking for sources. As a final note, though, do let me point out that neither of you should bring your sourcing here. My interactions with the two of you make it imperative that I remain neutral, so I will not be weighing in on the content dispute, only taking whatever action may be necessary in the event of further disruption. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Other people in the talk page without him and I pointed out the writer wrote manga not manhwa, because the works was published in manga magazin in Japanese and manga style first(this is fairly unusual that the Korean writer's work was serialized in manga magazin, so this work is famous for manga fan. I think IP's is one of them). So we can read in easyly. I think the writer can be either manga writer and manhwa writer, so the writer could be call manga writer and manhwa writer. But the works cited are manga only, and the Japanse version was firstly published in the citions(other version is not cited), so we think that it(not the writer) shoud be call manga now. But as Appletress said, the work was taranslated in manga from manhwa, and if the citation is made, I will chime in his opinion of cause. Jazz81089 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds to me as though what you're saying here is that you might agree that the writer should be referred to as both a manga writer and a manhwa writer, but that you believe that the work itself should be referred to as manga, unless a citation is found to verify that the work was printed as manhwa first. I'm restating this because there is a bit of a language barrier, and I want to be sure that your point is clear. (Please don't feel badly about the language barrier; you are far, far better at expressing yourself in English than I would be in Japanese.) Again, I am remaining neutral as seems necessary and not weighing in on the content dispute, but if I am reading you correctly, it sounds as though sourcing may indeed resolve the dispute or that neutral wording might be found that would satisfy both of you. Please do clarify if I have misunderstood you here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Just adding a note that the process of consensus seems to be working, as additional contributors are now responding at the article's talk page. Please join them in conversation there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As you write, I will agree that the writer should be referred to as both a manga writer and a manhwa writer, but that I beleave that the work itself should be referred to as manga, unless a citation is found to verify that the work was printed as manhwa first. Thanks a lot for your comment, I will add some source if I could. But probably they will be Japanese ones. Unfortunately, this work is famous, but I think it would not be so famous that it have English sources about that point. Jazz81089 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to explicitly note that at the article's talk page, then, where those editors contributing to the conversation may determine how best to incorporate your opinion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

←As I noted to Appletrees above, sources in languages other than English are appropriate, when no English equivalent exists. You can read Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources for more about that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that sources in languages other than English are appropriate, when no English equivalent exists. I will read them. Thanks!.Jazz81089 (talk)
Hi, Moonriddengirl, thank you for the update, I'm very busy today (and will be until tomorrow or even after the other day). That is good to have the discussion ongoing. :) I already left a lengthy statement, so Jazz can read it and express his thought about it. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fabric Structure - speedy deletion info

Thank you for your note. However, this is not a copyright infringement. This information is on our website, and I have referenced that. Also, we do have permission from Fabric Architecture (IFAI). I can fax you the document if needed. Please advise. Mtc38118 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question at the article's talk page and will duplicate that here:
Hi. As I pointed out at your talk page, the page from which the information is duplicated, here as online version, indicates that "Information provided herein adapted and reprinted with permission from Fabric Architecture, a publication of the Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI)." This assertion of permission does not verify that the material here has been released per GFDL, which means in part that it can be used commercially or noncommercially, altered and redistributed as Wikipedia's readers see fit, so long as authorship credit is maintained. If you have permission from IFAI to release this information according to GFDL, you should send an email with verification to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. Once verification is received, the copyright notice can be removed from the article and the contents restored, although other issues that have led to its prior deletion may still exist. I'll take a look at that in a minute, after I've properly filed your incomplete permission assertion for further evaluation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, MoonG. I got back from my trip. I'm still a little short of sleep, even though I turned down a late-night social activity nearly two days ago: I'm not a night owl. I still posted a bit to Wikipedia while I was away, so maybe nobody noticed I was gone! (I even had 10 minutes in a cyber cafe while everybody else was ordering food in a restaurant. My excuse was to contact another person, who actually came and joined us at the restaurant. Well, that was the excuse for the first 5 minutes of the online time; and if there hadn't been another customer waiting to use that computer I might still be there...)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the opposite of a night owl? Actually, I don't think I'm that, either. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I didn't answer this! Welcome back. :) Opposite of a night owl is a morning lark. Fortunately, I tend to be a bit of that, as I've got a lot of errands to run this morning (in my part of the world). But I wanted to drop a quick note before heading out to say that I got the message and will catch up when I get a chance! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I have a question about closing AfD's. Actually, I think AfD is not my thing: I'd rather work in other areas – maybe I'd even rather do sockpuppetry and copyright than AfD. However, I'd like to know how to do it correctly.
OK, it's my understanding that votes that are backed up by arguments about policy or guidelines are to be weighted more than votes that don't say anything much. And it's my understanding that votes that are backed up by policy are weighted the same regardless of whether the closing admin agrees with the argument or not. The question is: is there such a thing as the closing admin properly downweighting a vote on the grounds that it's based on a mistaken interpretation of policy, or does that always count as the same thing as disagreeing with the argument and weighting it the same as other votes? (I'm guessing it's the same thing – otherwise one would start down a slippery slope.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
To give an unlikely example, if I encountered an AfD where User:BritishCrown said, "Delete. Copyvio. This is taken directly from the Authorized King James Bible and the British Crown retains rights to it." I'd have to discount that, as we are governed by US copyright law because the database servers are located in the United States, and in the US AKJ is firmly public domain. I'd have to discount that even if the next 30 participants followed up with "Per BritishCrown". They are citing policy, but misunderstanding it. And I would explain that in my closure rationale. (And first go re-read the Copyright policy & Copyright FAQ very nervously, as 31 people seem to be understanding this differently than I do.) But this is, as I said, an unlikely example, because any article that quoted that extensively from AKJ would probably be unencyclopedic and would probably be up for deletion for other reasons. :) In a less unlikely example, if I met an argument where User:BandXisAwesome said, "Band X is notable, because their official myspace page says that their only album was nominated for a Grammy", I would close in favor of User:RigorousSourcing, who said, "Their Myspace can't be used to verify that. I haven't been able to locate any independent verification that the band meets WP:MUSIC." User:BandXisAwesome is right that this fact, if true, would satisfy WP:MUSIC, but User:RigorousSourcing is right that WP:V is the governing issue here. (But note that if only these two users were involved, I would relist for further discussion. User:IKnowHowtoUseGoogle might very well come around the corner to say, "Keep. I found some. It's in the band profile at Rolling Stone.")
Now, if User:Inclusionist says, "Band X meets WP:MUSIC as having widespread press coverage based on these 6 articles" and User:Deletionist says, "Those six articles aren't widespread!" and all 12 of the User:Followup team say "Keep per User:Inclusionist", I would not close per User:Deletionist, even if I personally agreed. That's not so much misinterpretation of policy as different interpretation of policy. I might be muttering under breath "Six? Six?" If I felt strongly about it, I'd not close the AfD but stop to !vote with User:Deletionist. But I would not feel an admin had the right to close against consensus in such cases. Will of the community and all.
And I do think it's important to watch out for that slippery slope you mention. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators does a pretty good job of explaining some of the complicating factors in closing AfDs. It also urges us to "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". I think this is an important reminder, since admins are not necessarily authorities in regards to content...while an admin does have additional tools and is expected to keep an eye out for issues like copy vios and BLP vios, questions of notability and what constitutes reliable sourcing are ultimately decided by a community of which the admin is precisely one (1) part. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Prods

I make new section, so you don't miss it ;>

Regarding prods...what do you usually do? Just let rip the delete button if it expired? (doubt it!) xenocidic (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the deletion rationale seems reasonable. I wouldn't delete, say, Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster for notability concerns. But I've seldom met a PROD that wasn't good to go. :) Of course, there's not so often a backlog at PRODS, so I've seldom met any of them.
New section = good. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I'll keep that in mind. My dashboard shows me prods which are (probably) ready for deletion, so that's why I ask =). xenocidic (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
ze stalking
That userbox you were asking about is ready : {{WP:TPS/userbox}}. I moved the page into WP space as well. Thanks for helping me with it. =) xenocidic (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

sacred heart church

Sorry I haven't been signed into wikipedia often enough to notice this. You deleted the story on sacred heart church due to copyright infringement. It is not. I wrote the original article for Latino Perspectives magazine and I give permission for the article to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchartes (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tactition

My first rationale for deleting Tactition was poor, thanks for pointing out that this word is used quite a bit even in the scientific literature. I have been teaching in the area of sensation and perception at the college level for over 20 years and recently have been writing a textbook on this topic (and in fact in the last few weeks have been working on the somatosensory chapter, which is how I stumbled onto this) so I've recently read about six review articles from Annual Review of Psychology and Annual Review of Neuroscience, and that word is unfamiliar to me. It was not in the OED. However, PubMed comes back with many hits. So people do use this word to refer to touch or tactile perception, and there are apparently many links to this term from other articles in Wikipedia. I was surprised, but it showed I had not done my homework.

My justification for deletion should have focused on the fact that this page contains little useful information in it, it includes a sentence concerning women's moral standards that seems to me quite irrelevant, and a little section on the "Aristoltelian definition" that makes little sense. So a merge into Somatosensory system would leave really nothing from this article, in my view. The Somatosensory system article is a serious, well-documented, informative discussion of the sense of touch in all its complexities and discusses the fact that the body senses are multidimensional. To me the best solution would be to redirect Tactition to Somatosensory system and the Tactile redirect page, which has many pages that link to it, should redirect to Somatosensory system rather than to Tactition. The term Touch which is a much more common term for what I think is meant by tactition, does appropriately redirect to Somatosensory system. Let me know what you think. --Cooper24 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you feel the article lacks real content, a redirect to Somatosensory may be appropriate. This is likely to be uncontroversial, since the PROD went uncontested for so long, though it can always be reversed later if others believe the article can be salvaged. If you do choose to redirect it, the redirect at Tactile would need to be redirected somewhere anyway, and redirecting it to the same point seems proper. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Thank you for your response. I understand the issue better now. I looked at the article under discussion and have no problem with the changes you made to address the copyright matter. Frankly, the only reason for the duplication/similarity was my attempt to kill two birds with one stone and not write the same basic material twice. But I understand now that I really should do so when writing for both sites. Thanks for your courtesy and illumination. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory renewable energy targets

Thanks for your time on Mandatory renewable energy targets dinghy (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Good of the project and all that. :D Of course, my time was minimal. The "time invested" award for that article quite clearly belongs to you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong_Method

You may find my comment on the subject on my Talk page. Regards, --Ritter (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right

I do find interesting things while patrolling newpages.

What on earth would you have done with Stars and planets (solar system)? I have literally no clue what the correct action was. J.delanoygabsadds 23:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a WP:CSD#G2, with a friendly note. I think the way you handled it was fine, although I'd be inclined to target your PROD rationale to the creator next time, as it seems likely to me that this contributor is young. :) His or her only other contribution, here, seems to be good faith, but the article was blatantly unencyclopedic. I think it might very well have been created as a test, to see if it could be done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I really had no clue what to tag it as. There is no {{db-unencyclopedic}}... J.delanoygabsadds 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No, there isn't. :) Most blatantly unencyclopedic content that I encounter is properly WP:CSD#G3, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. I think the PROD was a good call under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. WTH did I do? I've done that before with no problems. J.delanoygabsadds 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. :D My tweak fixed it, though, which in the long run is all that matters to me. As you know, technology is not my thing! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(For those who look at that diff and don't get it, take a look at the preserved version here. Half the content of my talk page went bye-bye, making it look like J.delanoy's last comment was, "Oh, I checked the history of the article further and know that I missed Example (talk · contribs)... J.delanoygabsadds 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)" Strange and mysterious are the ways of the world. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC))
I figured it out. Above, someone hadn't closed off Template:User. Here is a screenshot showing where it is. Since I nowiki-ed the opening "{"'s in my addition, but did not nowiki the closing ones, it interpreted my closing "}"'s as if the entire content of this page from up there to here was someone's username. Since it was way too long, it apparently just used User:Example for the content. Hope that makes sense. J.delanoygabsadds 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

←Ah! Indeed it does. Good sleuthing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

'Prove my hypothesis' deletion tag

Thank you for removing the speedy deletion tag from Prove My Hypotheses. ل داد 11:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Ldud talk

My pleasure, but honestly that one was a no-brainer. :) The tag was clearly inappropriate. Just as a note for future reference, I see that you added a "hangon" to the article. Unless you are also the article's creator, you can remove the tag as well. Any contributor except the article's creator can challenge a speedy. If there seems to be merit in a tag (unlike this one), it's considered appropriate not to remove the tag without doing something about it, but even then it's not required. If you don't think the article meets the criterion, feel free to remove the tag. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're on now...

Can you indefinitely move-protect my talk page so that [move=sysop]? I had to get it [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] a few days ago, and the protection expired this morning. Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 16:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Gracias. (If you're wondering why I used Spanish, look at these...) J.delanoygabsadds 17:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IMDB and copyvio

Hi. I've just been going back through previous contributions, and came across the issues with relation to the Gilda Pianelli article, which you've been kindly endeavouring to resolve. As the one who flagged it for possible copyvio, I just wanted to check that, firstly, I was correct in flagging it up and secondly, that I'd followed the correct procedure - since I do a fair bit of categorising, I edit a lot of actor profiles, so it might happen in future. I'm assuming that copy/pasting someones IMDB entry is a definiate no-no, and that any I find should be flagged as before ? (or is there a more appropriate way of flagging these articles) ? Thanks for any advice you can offer :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your handling of that was just fine. :) IMDb reserves copyright to itself and its contributors on its website, which means that usage of IMDb profiles needs "permission" just like material copied from any other external source. I find it helpful when contributes assert to have been the creators to point out Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia. We really have no other way of verifying that they have authority to release the material by GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Swedish auction

Hello-I've lost my patience in the discussion of Swedish auction. What really pushed me over the edge was User:Max7437's statement, "As you can see on “Revision history of Auction” much of that article has been written by me, with few complaints." In fact, Max has been making low-quality edits throughout the auction articles which will take some serious work to recover from. The fact that people have been patient with some of his bad edits should not be used as evidence that other edits are good. I suppose it should instead be used as evidence that we should be less patient. In any case, I figured I'd blow my stack at you rather than on the deletion page in the effort to be civil. If you can help me say the above civilly, maybe I'll say it to Max. Thanks! Cretog8 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

O, yes, related. It looks like Iraqi auction suffers the same problems as Swedish auction. I was holding off nominating it for deletion until the Swedish auction debate was over. Cretog8 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Complicated! Being civil is good. :D I'm not sure if you need to mention that in this deletion discussion, but it certainly sounds like it might need to be discussed at the article's talk page. Is this the kind of thing where drawing in assistance from some appropriate board or talk page might be useful? I'm not so terribly familiar with auctions, but based on this particular RfA would imagine there could be issues of WP:OR and WP:V. It might be a good idea to wait until this RfA closes before addressing the Iraqi auction, as a pointer to this RfA might be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll wait til Swedish auction is handled. Actually, I'm surprised to find how much less annoyed I am after that tiny little vent. Thanks for putting up with it. Once Swedish auction has been handled, I'll probably go to work in the Auction talk page for that and related articles. Cretog8 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Anubhah

I tagged a lot of the pages this guy created for speedy deletion, then I realized how many he had created. I am not sure how to handle this. Can you look at them and see what you think? J.delanoygabsadds 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokes! At this point, I would say that stopping to talk to the creator, to explain why these articles are inappropriate, is probably the way to go. It looks like Corvus cornix might have already done that, though. The editor has not edited since that note was left and may respond to it once he returns. I think they're probably being handled appropriately. We're down to one article that is up for AfD and one PRODded (you've added the PROD since I started investigating). I think that's probably proper. If I were in your position, I'd probably leave the guy another note in support of Corvus' with a pointer to Wikipedia:Stub. I really like the way that Corvus opened his note: "Thank you for your contributions, they are greatly appreciated." This guy may be understandably upset to find his articles deleted, but if diplomatically mentored could turn out to be a valuable contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I left him a note. Thanks for the advice, and thanks for answering all of the 1,000,000's of questions I keep spamming deluging asking you. J.delanoygabsadds 23:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It is, again, my pleasure. You're totally worth the time. :D I like the way you operate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Anony's personal attack

should see thisand this he's making racist comments about me, and detering just because I accuse him about sockpuppet. I only go by what Rschen7754 said. Can you warn him not to do that, becasue we should treat everyone with respect o matter what happens. These changes is not acceptable.--Freewayguy Discussions Show all changes 05:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • That's because you harrassed me! --75.47.147.40 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Anony is taking the fault on me because he believes I accuse him about sockpuppet, when I just go by what Rschen7754 says. He post go to hell, and F*** me because I accuse him of sockpuppet, which was not acceptable when I don't know. Thanksfor your time.--Freewayguy Discussions Show all changes 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not sure the background here, but personal attacks are not allowed. I've left the appropriate warning. Please don't do it again. 75.47.147.40, if you feel like you're being harassed, please view Wikipedia:Harassment for the proper steps for proceeding. You should also read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, including the section that says, "If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself." Meanwhile, tags like this one here are inappropriate. If you want to launch an investigation of sock puppetry, you may do so; but you should not label anything as confirmed until it has been. I have removed the tags you placed here, here, here, here and here. Please do not restore them without providing a link to the sock puppetry investigation that confirmed a link. While you may find it suspicious that one of these IP addresses placed a tag in the other editor's sandbox space, it isn't in itself conclusive, and the fact that you went around tagging various IP addresses makes it seem that, for whatever reason, the harassment is in the other direction. Again, if you feel that you're being harassed, there are proper methods for handling it. Retaliation is not among them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jazz81089's personal attacks again

Hi, Moonriddengirl, I come to here with the same problem with Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) again. I guess the editor does not listen to your previous advice and warning, and especially regarding WP:NPA policy. I can't bear his own gaming, doing nothing to develope the article of Blade of the Phantom Master‎, but the only thing he has done is to write personal attacks at his edit summary or accuse others at the talk page (actually the article has been edited by other neutral editors). Anyway, the guy knows very well how to make me enraged. I think a suitable action should be taken upon the user.

  1. 2008-06-17T04:50:57 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (Your gaming conduct was already recorded, read it again.)
  2. 2008-06-17T04:41:50 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete Caspian blue's gamings)
  3. 2008-06-17T04:40:32 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete. Appletrees gamings)

Please take a look at this. Thanks. By the way, I changed my screen name. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you also take a look at another bad-faith filing by Jazz at WP:ANI#User:Caspian blue and User:Jazz81089 again? I feel very absurd on this (I was the one who got his mockeries at his edit summaries) --Caspian blue (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have weighed in at ANI. Again, though, I urge you to please try to ignore him. I find his edit summaries there questionable, since he knows it bothers you, but I do not see them as actionable yet. If he persists or spreads it outside of his userspace, it will start to look a lot more like harassment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is Jazz's behaviors much like Japanese meat/sockpuppet offenders with off-wiki forum, 2channel who have stalked me and especially Korean editors for really long time. I filed such disruptive editors many of which has been indefinitely blocked by the filing. I think Jazz's motivation is to expose my name as many as possible as he can even though his report is contradictory, I feel like I should go over to checkuser to look at the account again since his edit numbers were not sufficient, but now then enough. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If the technical difficulty is overcome, it may be a good idea to resolve the question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of Sound Samples

Hi there, I've added a few 30 second sound samples to a couple of articles (Song to the Siren, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Dr. Dre). While i'm confident the samples do fulfil the fair use criteria i've listed them under I'm increasing suspicious that i seem to be one of very few people adding this type of media to articles. Am i doing the right thing? Does the fair use rationale seem fine to you? Does this kind of thing belong in the articles at all? I'd appreciate your thoughts! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) How long are the songs? 30 seconds fits if the songs are longer than 5 minutes. If the songs are shorter than 5 minutes, the samples need to be shorter, according to Wikipedia:Music samples. It's 30 seconds or 10%, whichever is shorter. For Song to the Siren, 30 seconds is too long by a bit. 27.6 seconds is the maximum the sound clip for that should be. Another consideration: are you reducing their quality? Limiting your song samples to one sample per song recording? Placing the song samples next to conversation about them in the article? (Looks like yes on a quick glance.) Meet those conditions, and you should be doing the right thing. :) I've never added sound samples because it's never occurred to me to do so. I might have to give it some thought! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the kind of guideline i was looking for. I didn't know about the 10% rule so i'll change the length accordingly. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's done it now: [2] [3] [4]. Thanks for the help. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad if I could help. That's a new one on me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in at the end of a conversation, but a while ago, I had uploaded a sound clip but I never did any more because I thought I would get yelled at for using so much fair-use stuff. However, it never occurred to me before now that almost every article about songs has the cover of the album or single, and all those images are used under fair use. Do you think Wikipedia would get in trouble if we uploaded a lot of sound clips as long as we obeyed the whole schpeel about quality and length? J.delanoygabsadds 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be inclined to go light rather than heavy--I wouldn't put in a sample for each song--but I'm naturally paranoid cautious that way. :) But I think that as long as you stay within fair use, you should be fine. For example, I might put up a sample for "Groovin' High", an article I wrote on a song yesterday. I will not add any to Groovin' High (album) because I'm not currently planning to discuss any of the songs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was only going to do like one song, so don't worry! (I can see what you thought I was going to do..... add a sample to every article inclusive in the subcategories of this category :P )
I just really read Wikipedia:Music samples, and I am somewhat confused about where the proper place to put a sample is. In the articles you were shown by Sillyfolkboy, he put them in a "floating box". In the article where I put my sample, Tattoo (song), I put the sample in the infobox, similar to the example given at WP:Music samples. What is the distiction? I mean, how do you know whether or not to put the sample in the infobox or not? J.delanoygabsadds 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know you could put them in the infobox! I think the uses of the samples between the articles are different, it makes more sense with one sample from the single in the sparks article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

←Phew. Such a relief to me to hear that! :D It seems like they could go in either place. Infobox or article body if the article is about a song; article body if it's not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

heh, thanks :) (You know, April 1 is only 286 days away.............) Just kidding :P J.delanoygabsadds 13:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Being mischievous is too much work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded Image:Miley Cyrus - See You Again.ogg with an unacceptably high quality. Can you delete it as db-author so that I can re-upload a lower quality sample? The reason I would like you to delete the "image" (Why do they call every media file an image?) is because if I simply "uploaded a new version", the high quality version would still be available. J.delanoygabsadds 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If you want a laugh, check out the file history for the "image". (scroll down on the page) I just love copy/paste... *rolls eyes* J.delanoygabsadds 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

arguecat4

I read the entire discussion and I removed personal info. why cant you guys give me a chance to validate any of the info???????????? I am researching her personal blog now-which is in Japanese-so it takes time for me to research it being as I am not a fluent speaker.

This conversation should continue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. If you want to add information to the article, be prepared to provide reliable sources to validate it when you do. Again, given your history, there is no reason for us to make special allowances on a presumption of good faith. If you really want to contribute constructively, given that you started off vandalizing the article and admit as much, you should be more than willing to demonstrate that you intend to comply with guidelines now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Can you check if this article is copyrighted?. I revert the author who said this article is copied from that link. To me the article is not copied from there except for some lines. Can you help?. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. The section entitled "Field" is a direct copy from the source. That's five sentences there. The first two paragraphs of the subsequent section are copied from the source. After that, there is some effort to rewrite in that section, but there are still whole phrases that infringe on the original (For example in the original: Since 1990 it is made of carbon fiber; wikipedia: Since 1990 it has been made out of carbon fibre.) The section entitled "Play" at least starts with a copy of the source, except that numbers have been spelled out (18 becomes eighteen). It looks like substantial copyright violation exists. Blanking the article until those sections are completely rewritten seems like a good idea. In general, "copyright violation" notices are not reverted or removed until an administrator investigates them. They are listed on an administrator noticeboard. This one, as you see, is listed here. Sometimes they can backlog there, so it's not a bad idea to seek out an administrator for feedback if you think an article has been improperly blanked, but we shouldn't remove the tags until that's resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was wondering how can this article get B class when half of the article is copied?. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My guess would be that the rater didn't know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you check this and reply if possible?. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Removing hangon tags from articles

Thanks. Iam aware of the rules. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. Removing valid content, including tags, is generally regarded as a bad idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no valid content Moon. That user also had removed a previous db tag. Here go and browse the site [5]. Happy browsing. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if there is no valid content or if the user had previously removed a db tag. The reason we don't indefinitely block people after their first vandalism edit is that there is a chance that they might decide to stop vandalizing. There is a chance that this creator might have been operating in good faith, and allowing him to follow process doesn't stop process from working. If his "hangon" was not persuasive or forthcoming, then the article would have been deleted anyway, and we wouldn't be in the position of leaving somebody a note telling them to put a "hangon" tag on the article and then removing the "hangon" when they do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok fine. So restore the article and let him do whatever he wants. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I do believe you are missing the point. If I thought the deletion was inappropriate, I would have brought that up with the admin who deleted it. I was on the verge of deleting it myself. The point is not that the article should remain, but that you should not obstruct the processes put in place. You yourself left the notice for the creator (and good for you; those are important) telling him how to contest the speedy deletion. He might reasonably take issue with you then blocking him from following the instructions that you left him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Iam short temper sometimes or many time but i do understand your points. For instance when i have created some articles and went on to improve it. The next min i see a db tag and after few milli seconds the article is gone. Do you know how angry i was?. I started to hate some of the wikipedia admins and still do. Atleast there are few admins here i like :P. Anyways Moonridden i do understand what you have said and i wont do it again. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I can imagine how frustrating that is. When I'm working on an article, I always put an {{inuse}} tag on it so that other editors know I'm not finished. This is also supposed to eliminate edit conflicts. It doesn't always, but I think it probably does help. I suspect that the admins who deleted your articles didn't mean it personally, though I'm sure it must feel that way. :/ Anyway, thanks. While I wind up deleting quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia, I think it's important that we be as fair as we can be to creators so that others don't wind up feeling the way that you did. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :). Here is the cookie.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell3395

Tell this guy he's been blocked. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of looking for the best template to do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this note on ANI.[6] I'm flattered! :) BrownHornet21 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You earned it. Difficult role you've undertaken. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Coyote Point Systems: Delete?

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the Coyote point systems talk page.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should let you know that I am associated with this company (I'm the founder). I don't think that that should immediately disqualify me from creating an article. Someone needs to "prime the pump" by creating the page, and then (hopefully) the community will fill in by updating and maintaining the page.

There was a useful pointer from Kevin to the WP:CORP page, and I'll make sure I add some more independent sources to the page.

In general, I do think that this company is notable for being a pioneer in bringing what has generally been a very high-end (i.e. expensive) technology (Application Traffic Management/Load Balancing) to the mid-market, which has resulted in better internet infrastructure for organizations with limited budgets! Additionally, as I tried to indicate in the article, Coyote is a pioneer company in this particular technology space. We're mentioned in a number of other pages, such as load balancing and f5 Networks. I'm pretty sure that nobody from Coyote added those citations.

Anyhow, I will endeavor to improve the notability aspects of this page, and hope that it remains in place.

Coyotekish (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Perfect manners

Hello, I saw you deleted the article I wrote about that book, I couldn't follow the hole discussion because I couldn't get connected to the Internet for a good while. Is that article completely deleted or would you be able to post it to me so I can improve it without starting from the beginning? Would you give some advice to avoid other deletion proposal for I must confess I could not understand why was Perfect manners considered uncontested. Thanks in advance --Munifico (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted following a "proposed deletion", which is only for uncontroversial deletions. It was uncontested because nobody removed the prod tag. However, it is standard practice to restore PRODded articles if they are requested back, so I have gone on ahead and restored this one. The guideline you'll want to read here is Wikipedia:Notability (books), which explains the criteria for establishing book articles on Wikipedia. You'll want to use reliable sources to verify how your article meets the guidelines. This will help you to avoid a deletion discussion on the article. Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing I should mention: this is probably something you should attend to soon. It is also standard practice to notify the proposer of deletion that the article has been restored, and he or she may choose to proceed with a deletion debate now that the deletion has been challenged. I have tagged the article for {{notability}} concerns. Feel free to remove that tag once secondary sources have been provided to verify that it meets the guidelines linked above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the information. I probably will take it to AfD, but I'll give the editor a couple of days to provide notability/sources before I review it again - it only seems fair, especially if they've got problems with internet access. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:David Cargo1.jpg and

You took care for Image:David Cargo1.jpg:

12:37, 22 June 2008 Moonriddengirl deleted "Image:David Cargo1.jpg" ‎ (Copyright. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 May 20/Images)

Would you mind doing the same to:

Image:Jerry Apodaca1.jpg‎; - For the same reason: State of New Mexico public office buildings:This is photo taken of a photo hanging on the wall taken by another, professional photographer: copyrighted work.

Thanks, ~ WikiDon (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. It's done. Thanks for catching those! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Found another one:
Should I report it? ~ WikiDon (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it as a WP:CSD#I9. This is appropriate when a false license is asserted, and the flash flare made that one blatant. I don't know if the individual just didn't understand that you can't take a photo of a copyrighted photo and call it yours, but there's not much point in discussing it with him as he is indefinitely banned for sock-puppetry. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 22 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Groovin' High, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Vishnava talk 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! :D Thank you so much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

COI

I write because of your prior response to the BLPN post I submitted regarding Dicklyon's violations of BLP and 3RR at Archives of Sexual Behavior. He is now accusing me of violating COI in part because of that, so it seemed appropriate to notify you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MarionTheLibrarian.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD stuff

Thanks for your answer to my question, MoonG, which I've read more than once and which sounds very reasonable. I've been wondering about the things I said here. Maybe some of those things are valid things for the person closing a discussion to consider, and maybe some are not. What do you think? (I can't remember if I've already asked you this question – sorry if it's a repeat.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back on this. I needed to read through some of the context there, as I find it difficult to give an opinion on your argument without knowing a little bit of the background. :) (Just a little bit, though; I have not even read through the whole page.) I liked what Johannes Rohr said there: "Closing down an existing project would required a clear community consensus (as opposed to a simple majority)" I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. I think that people who close discussions need to be sensitive to the gravity of the discussion in question—for example, at this point, it is easier to pass an RfA than an RfB; a higher ratio of opposes is regarded as acceptable in the former than the latter without raising questions as to whether or not consensus to promote was actually achieved. In deletion, default position is keep. (See point 4.)
As to your specific note, I'm finding your question difficult to answer, as I don't think the standards of AfD can be applied to that conversation. A good many of those comments boil down to one word. In an AfD, "keep" and "delete" do not speak to policy; without some indication of reasoning (even the relatively weak "per nom", which at least means "I agree with what the nominator said") they should be discounted altogether. In an RfA, the community seems to accept "support" without further comment, but expects explanation for "delete". I keep finding myself flipping as I frame my reply between addressing whether I think your comment there was valid to that discussion, which has some of the characteristics of an AfD but also substantial core differences, or would be valid to an AfD. :) Given your header here, I presume you're talking more AfDs, and I don't really have any position to be weighing in on the specifics of a closed debate on another project anyway, so I'll go meta and address what I think is the core of the question.
I agree that the closer looks at the arguments for nature and strength. One of the challenges of closing AfDs is that the process falls down as a discussion. In an actual jury trial, all evidence is collected and discussed, and then the jury retires to consider it. Everyone has a chance to voice his or her opinion, and the "vote" is taken only after everyone has done so. In an AfD, juror A might make his !vote on day 1 and never look back (he should, but many evidently don't). On day 3, Juror F comes along and makes a brilliant counter-argument, but juror A never gets to see it. If Jurors A-E don't respond, we can't know if they would have been influenced by that argument. In that case, a closer should take into account the impact that Juror F's argument had on all subsequent jurors and conceivably weight those more heavily than the !votes that came before. The input of subsequent jurors helps to be sure that we aren't allowing ourselves (as closers) to admit our own bias to the project. After all, just because we think Juror F's argument was brilliant, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone else will agree. Sometimes Jurors G, H, I & J will give it the raspberry, and perhaps Juror K will even point out the big old flaw that Juror F (and we, the closer) missed. (This is, of course, assuming that all arguments are equally within policy and the debate hinges on finer points of it--say as to whether the only six sources to be found on a topic constitute widespread and/or substantial coverage or not.) But what happens if Juror F is the last responder? Unless Juror F pointed out a serious policy issue, I would be unlikely to overturn the default position (keep in AfD) on the strength of one argument. (I just wanted to be clear that obviously none of this applies if what Juror F points out is a trump card--as in, "Delete. The article is great. It was great when I first read in the New York Times, too. It's a copyvio." You know that, but talkstalkers may not. :)) If Juror F is the last responder and I felt that Juror F's position might influence others, I might relist. Or I would myself become Juror G. (Another substantial variation from the courtroom set up: the "judge" has the opportunity to recuse herself from hearing the case and instead become a juror.)
As a closer, I would look at the lack of response to debate in determining the validity of the original argument. Its impact on the outcome might be determined by whether others have taken on the task of responding. (Example: "Juror A says non-notable because." "Juror B says Juror A is wrong because." "Juror C says I agree with Juror A because." The fact that Juror A didn't respond doesn't mean Juror B is right; Juror C has effectively responded on his behalf.) It would also depend on whether the point/question being ignored is a statement of differing opinion merely or has a firmer grounding in policy/logic. If Juror A says, "There's only one source that says this matters" and Juror B says, "True, but that single source is The Definitive Oxford Guide to This Subject" I'd give more weight to Juror B. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your thorough investigation and reply, as usual, Moonriddengirl. I hope I didn't impose on you too much by asking you a question about an unfamiliar debate on another project. No apology needed: I figured you needed time to think about it, and there's no requirement that you necessarily answer at all. Your answer is very interesting and sensible and it will be useful to have it, and your other answer, to refer back to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been acting like both an owl and a lark again. At least I take naps. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Things have been crazy for me, too. :) I've got a little breathing room this morning--just finished a round of work e-mails, and I can't do anything else until I hear back on some of those. So I'm spending my time on Wikipedia and personal e-mails. Whoot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw a baby rabbit yesterday. There have been more rabbits around here in recent years; I think it's because most people don't use pesticides on lawns any more. This year I also noticed a lot more different kinds of birds. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Centre for Distance Education

I DID NOT copy and paste. I used the MOVE BUTTON. I was allowed to move it under WP:BOLD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I had moved it properly. Now we need to address Gayle's non-notable article. I'm sorry that I overreacted. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps you need to review WP:CIVIL. It's good that you removed your comment, but "thanks for being a jerk" is in violation of policy even if you do think that you're being falsely accused of something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Explaination regarding deletion

Would you be so kind to explain your deletion of the article for 'st clair surf life saving club'

Coomsey (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The article was proposed for deletion on June 6th by User:Helenalex with the stated rationale "Dubious notability, most of article is about surf lifesaving in general." The PROD was not challenged in the five days that followed placement of the tag, and the rationale was valid. The article contained two sentences about its subject, and five paragraphs about surf lifesaving in general. There were no reliable sources to verify the notability of that particular life saving club. Though it did include enough assertion of importance ("is the largest of the six clubs based in the Otago region") to avoid speedy deletion, the claim was not verified nor was there information provided that would substantiate that this is a sufficient claim of notability to meet the guideline. Since the tag was accurate and within policy and guideline and it was not contested, it was deleted routinely.
It is standard practice to restore articles deleted by PROD if the PROD is challenged. If you would like this one restored so that you can work on it further, let me know; I would be happy to do so. However, if you don't add sources to verify notability, the article may be taken to deletion debate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with creating an article

I drafted up my article on the drawing board about a month ago, and you were kind enough to give me feedback on it. I was hoping you could take a look at it again...

About EtQ

EtQ, Inc., an acronym for “Excellence Through Quality” is a provider of Enterprise Quality Management Software. EtQ develops software to automate processes and procedures associated with Quality Management and ISO standards. EtQ’s software platform uses a Web Browser interface and Workflow-based technology to map ISO, Quality Management, Environmental Health and Safety, and FDA Compliance processes to allow the software to meet the needs of the businesses that employ the tool.

EtQ is a privately held firm with corporate offices in Farmingdale, NY. North American technical support and development is in Tucson, AZ. EtQ development and international technical support is in Amman, Jordan.

History

The company was originally founded in 1992 under the name EtQ Management Consultants. EtQ Management Consultants was founded by former Underwriter’s Laboratories employees, with the goal of providing consultation on ISO certification. As the company began to grow, many clients began to ask for consultation on software to automate processes related to ISO standards. At the time, the company was unable to find a comprehensive tool that met the needs of their client. As a result, EtQ Management Consultants began to develop software to meet their clients’ needs. EtQ called this new product ISO 9000 Maps, designed to help diagram and document ISO 9000 procedures.

As demand for more intuitive software solutions grew, EtQ Management Consultants responded in 1995 with their first workflow-enabled solution, EtQ Solutions. EtQ discontinued production of the ISO 9000 Maps product, and changed its focus from Consulting to Software, and changed their name to EtQ, Inc.

EtQ Inc. continued to sell software products, primarily for use on the Lotus Notes client environment. However, with the advent of the Internet, EtQ began developing their products for Web Browsers. In 1998 EtQ released their second product, also called EtQ Solutions which provided a web-based client interface to replace the Lotus Notes client.

During this time, EtQ began growing as a company, and added locations for their Technical Support and Development groups. As the ISO 9000 market matured, EtQ began to expand beyond general manufacturing companies, moving into the FDA regulated industry such as Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices.

EtQ most recent product, EtQ Reliance, was created in 2003 and was a Web Browser based solution that used Java programming. This allowed EtQ to expand its software offering beyond the Lotus Domino community to the rest of the market.

In 2007, EtQ’s Development center was awarded ISO 9001 certification for their Quality Management System. After conducting a full audit of the quality management system at the EtQ Development Center, the audit team led by SGS concluded that EtQ has established and maintained its quality management system in line with the requirements of the SO 9001:2000 standard. No discrepancies were found during the audit.

In 2008, EtQ was awarded Stamped Green approval in recognition of EtQ’s commitment to developing eco-friendly products that foster a paperless environment, and reduce companies’ footprint on the environment.

As of 2008, EtQ has implemented software systems in over 1000 facilities, with over 750,000 users to date. EtQ continues to develop and provide support for all three workflow products. EtQ’s customer base ranges in size, from small startup firms to Fortune 100 companies.

Technology

EtQ uses workflow technology to automate processes related to Quality Management Systems. Called “flexible workflow”, EtQ developed this technology independently to address the unique aspects required within a Quality Management System. Flexible workflow technology is designed to use robust business rules, forms and workflows to accurately route records throughout the business, but have a high-degree of flexibility to make changes to these elements, without programming. Flexible Workflow technology has allowed configurations such as forms, fields, keywords, workflows, sections, even styles and aesthetics to be configured by the customer, without making any code-level changes.

This concept has allowed business processes and workflows to be changed as needed, by administrators within the company. Flexible workflow has enabled business users of the software to drive changes to the workflows, without requiring additional development resources. The technology uses a series of drag and drop tools, business rule forms, and settings to allow changes to the overall workflow.

The Flexible workflow technology can be found in all three of EtQ’s product platforms: EtQ Solutions for Lotus Notes, EtQ Solutions for Web/Domino, and EtQ Reliance.

Products

EtQ’s products are module-based, using integrated modules to address different elements of Quality Management Systems. The number of modules vary by product suite, with each module filling a specific need to the type of processes they automate.

thanks a lotSmhaft (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to take a look. I see one major problem persisting that I addressed in May at the drawing board. Specifically, as I mentioned then, this particular article would be governed by the notability guidelines on companies. The rule of thumb here is noting whether the company has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the company (excluding company PR releases and information solely available on the company website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). All material must be attributable. What independent sources do you plan to use to verify notability? Lacking those, other concerns may not matter, as the article may be deleted for not verifying that it meets inclusion guidelines.
That aside, tone seems much better, although there are a few notes that might be seen as promotional unless verified with reliable sources--"After conducting a full audit of the quality management system at the EtQ Development Center, the audit team led by SGS concluded that EtQ has established and maintained its quality management system in line with the requirements of the SO 9001:2000 standard. No discrepancies were found during the audit." Where is the independent source for this? "In 2008, EtQ was awarded Stamped Green approval...." By whom? Where is the independent source for that?
If you have reliable, independent sourcing, then I don't personally see any red flags in the text you use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Alpha Theory

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and was trying to create a page for Alpha Theory which you deleted. I respect that. But, I'm trying to understand how it got deleted in comparison to other similar articles out there like this one for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartclient ?

Senordhuff (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I placed a notice on your page with pointers to the relevant policies in the hopes that it might help you understand why that particular article was a valid candidate for speedy deletion. Though you can't see it, the article you link was also speedily deleted (as promotion and copyright violation) on its first incarnation. Even in its recreated form, it was tagged for promotional language, which the creator addressed. Frankly, that article doesn't provide necessary references to verify that it meets the notability guidelines for products, so I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been tagged for deletion by this point. However, in a project the size of this one, it is not unusual for one article to be tagged as problematic while another escapes detection. This question comes up enough that it has been included in the often-referenced "articles to avoid in deletion debates", here. (That particular document was created as a reference guide for deletion debates, but it nevertheless might help clarify.)
If you would like to create an article on this product, your best bet is to read the notability guideline I've linked above and also the guideline on promotion as well as the policy on neutrality to get an idea how to proceed with such articles. I'm afraid that basing them on existing articles may steer you wrong. If you want a basis, you might look at Wikipedia:Good articles, which includes many categories of articles that have been evaluated as "good" by Wikipedia standards to see if you can find one on a similar product. While these are benchmarks to aim for, you certainly don't need to quite reach that line with your article. But they are much better models than a random product article that might itself be deleted if it were brought under scrutiny. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: st clair surf life saving club

yes I would like to page to restored I have specific information regarding the organisation that i was intending to post.

Coomsey (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. I will restore the article and remove the PROD tag. As is common practice, I will also notify the original tagger that the PROD has been challenged. In order to avoid deletion debate, you may wish to add your new material soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Suceviţa Monastery, copyright concerns

How is the article now? Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No longer a concern. :D Thank you; I'll mark the matter resolved at the copyright problem board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CP

I noticed your activity too. I'm sure you have your own interests, so on behalf of the community, a big THANKS for taking the time to whittle down the backlog. -- Robocoder (t|c) 16:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you for your continued work and assistance on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, reviewing copyright status and generally cleaning up articles that need attention or a referee. As well as taking the time to make improvements to Template:Copyviocore. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you so much. :D I know exactly what you mean. A lot of solitary hours go into working here. When I see that "new message" banner, I always halfway brace myself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Frank Kratovil

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Frank Kratovil. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this didn't start with the courteous conversation that step 1 says is supposed to take place. While we may not have been able to come to an agreement and could very likely have wound up at DRV anyway (although I would have been interested to see that the article was redirected against consensus), it would have been the friendly thing to do. Seems to me that there's usually time for the niceties, as it vastly reduces the stress of disagreement. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It seemed pretty clear there was no "mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding", and that once an AFD is closed for a few months, it cannot be undone. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I rather think it would have been a much more neighborly way to go about it...and, if not, then at least a personal note in addition to the template. There aren't that many emergencies on Wikipedia. Once an AfD is closed for a few months, leaving it as it is for a few more hours probably won't hurt. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, sorry, you're right. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Header added

I noticed you ereased my entry for "Uther Pendragon" (band) and was wondering why. is there somthing i did wrong or information I needed to add. Just courious, thank you.

StudioXman (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Answered... J.delanoygabsadds 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


About Wireless Intelligent Answer Sheet

hi, Moonriddengirl. I would like to give the link to find out more at my invention. and if my reasons where logical enough, tell me if i can publish wias on wiki or not. take a look at links below:

http://schahinap.googlepages.com/wias

http://schahinap.googlepages.com/interviews

i'm looking forward for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.97.94 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The issues that I explained in our last conversation and, earlier, at your talk page are still relevant here. Neither of these link constitutes a reliable source, as both are connected to you and they are not independent. To demonstrate notability according to the guidelines, you need sources unrelated to you. Additionally, as I've explained, the fact that you have a conflict of interest makes it more appropriate that you not write the article at all. If you think that the invention meets the guidelines, you might wish to suggest that somebody else create the article at requested articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Path of Life Camp

I created this page quite a while ago, (think: more than a year) when I was young and foolish. :P I am not trying to appeal its deletion here, what I am doing is asking about how it was deleted. The only reason I even knew that is was deleted at all was because I received a message from BJBot informing me of an orphaned fair-use image which had been used on the article. I then looked at the deletion log of Path of Life Camp and was shocked to see that it had been speedy deleted. Are you allowed to speedy delete an article that has been around for a year when it is not an attack page or a copyvio? J.delanoygabsadds 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Allowed, yes, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. I also think that warning contributors that their articles are nominated for deletion should be mandatory, and I have said as much at talk:csd. Looking into it further now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The article was tagged {{db-corp}} by User:Montco, who apparently doesn't do that notification thing, judging by the last 500 edits. I know you can see for yourself who followed up on it. I've re-read WP:CSD and looked through the lesser-used Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations just to be sure, but as I thought there's nothing about the age of the article there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. If they had told me about it, whether in the form of an AFD, PROD, or CSD, I would have just db-authored it. Oh, well. J.delanoygabsadds 12:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Solidarity. :/ I'd never tag a page without checking contributions and approaching the creator first. I usually check to see if the creator has been notified before deleting the article and have been known to drop a note to the creator myself if not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Thank you very much for your comprehensive and helpful explanation. I had no idea that copyright material from one Wikipedia article to another can constitute plagiarism and copyright violation. I shall bear this information in mind from now on. Cheers Edelmand (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Related question, what if I add the same information to three realted articles ? is it still plagiarism if one was added before the other ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Strange one, huh? :D As I interpret it, if you add it, it's not a problem, because you're the author in all places. GFDL guarantees you authorship credit, and your placement of the material satisfies that. Academically speaking, it may still be self-plagiarism, but I don't think Wikipedia cares about that in the least. I have little templates I use all over the place, so I plagiarize myself all the time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I was nervous after reading Edelmand's post. :))Taprobanus (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Happy to clarify to the best of my ability. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Major problem here...

Can you look at my last few contributions? Someone introduced a lot of copyright violations about people who are probably not notable. They were all brought to AFD before the AFD nom noticed they were speediable. If you delete, I'll close the AFDs. My reasoning is, if any of those people really are notable, someone can create a legitimate article. J.delanoygabsadds 17:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nvm. I thought you were on right now. Asked on WP:AN. J.delanoygabsadds 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! I had wandered off to life. :D Looks like these have been handled. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry for bugging you. I am just used to spamming your talk page whenever I need something done involving deletion. Sorry.
Also, can you check the links in my sandbox and make sure I closed the debates correctly? I did them all exactly the same from a technical standpoint (meaning I used the same templates, so if one is right, they're all right and vice versa) Also, you have a life in the Real World??! What's that like? :P J.delanoygabsadds 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Totally not bugging me. Feel free to knock on my talk page any time. The closures look good to me. You opened & shut the box correctly. You removed the "remove this template" bit. Seems like you did it exactly right. :) (I can only tolerate my life in the Real World in small chunks. You'll notice I frequently flee back to the shelter of the Wikiworld. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!
Thanks!

Thank you, Moonriddengirl, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just glad I made it in time. :) I don't always notice what's going on over there at RfA. Congratulations! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard Core article

Article improved. ---Dan 56 8:07 July 1, 2008

Indeed, it is. Good job. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: copyright

Just letting you know I'm working on it... J.delanoygabsadds 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried just about everything I could to view those links, but the website, for all practical purposes, does not exist. I even discovered a way to search Google's cached versions of websites. You enter cached:URL. To amuse myself, I looked at the cached version of en.wikipedia.org. It still has Oxidative phosphorylation as Today's Featured Article. But that really has nothing to do with anything. The point is, searching Google for cached:http://stagnes.nsw.edu.au/mission_n_vision.html comes up with nothing, which means that the website has not been in existence since Google last updated their search indexes, which they typically do once a month. So that website does not exist. However, I did look at one of the other references in the aritcle, and I came up with this: [7], which I assume is a copy of the schools website. In any case, although the Wikipedia article is organized differently, many of the phrases are identical, such as
"The formal Religious Education program follows the diocesan program, ‘Sharing Our Story’. All students study Religious Education as part of their School Certificate studies."
Also, some phrases are very similar, for example, this is in the Wikipedia article:
"St Agnes Catholic High School, in Rooty Hill, a western suburb of Sydney, Australia, is a secondary school with approximately 650 students enrolled. The school caters for students from Years 7-10 and draws students from St Aidan's Primary, Rooty Hill, Sacred Heart Primary, Mt Druitt, and St John Vianney's Primary, Doonside, as well as a number of other schools in the surrounding suburbs."
and this is in the Web article
"St Agnes is located in Rooty Hill and with approximately 650 students enrolled draws on students from St Aidan's Primary, Rooty Hill, Sacred Heart Primary, Mt Druitt, and St John Vianney's Primary, Doonside, as well as a number of other schools in the surrounding suburbs."
I think that that may be enough similarity for you to delete the Wikipedia article as a copyvio of http://www.parra.catholic.edu.au/Our-Schools/School-Profiles/School-Profile.aspx?SchoolName=St+Agnes+Catholic+High%2C+Rooty+Hill, but I am not sure, as I have only a cursory knowledge of this type of thing. I normally only deal with extremely obvious copyvios, like the ones I brought to your attention yesterday. I hope this helps. J.delanoygabsadds 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ensuring that the Balance of Questions remains in your favor :P

Should I bother re-tagging articles as copyvios if they were previously tagged under some other CSD criteria? For example, when I came across RL Hudson, it was tagged with db-spam. The article is (or was, I don't know if you'll read this before the article is deleted) a copy/paste of the first part of http://www.rlhudson.com/. Should I (have) tag (tagged) it as db-copyvio? J.delanoygabsadds 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would, although some would surely tell you it's a waste of time. The reason I would is that in some cases, a deletion may later be challenged or overturned, and it's safest to make that copyright violation known so that this doesn't happen. (No way it'll happen with that article.) Most of the time, copyright is going to trump other CSD issues, anyway. :) Even if you don't re-tag it, though, it's always a good idea to drop a uw-copyright on the contributor's page. This may alert them to an issue they haven't understood, or at least give a heads up to future editors that they should know better and may need to be blocked. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kenworth article copyvio notice.

Well, of course, I'd like the issue resolved and for it to just go away. :) But, alas, it's just a bit more complicated than that. The first thing I'm going to do is rewriting that "I've authored..." text. The problem, is that when the warning went up, I was under the impression that I had to give up copyrights on it. Honestly, it should never have been an issue in the first place. I wish I could pull it up out of my memory banks, but I remember reading an article here at Wikipedia a week or two before I wrote the Kenworth section, that was almost fully posted verbatim from a website whose author did the exact same thing (hence why I did it, even his wording "I've autored a condensed and derivative work for the <insert article name here> article on Wikipedia" text was written the exact same way - and there wasn't any issue there). I don't want to give up copyright on the work, but at the same time, I feel as though I'm almost forced to.

I was even shocked that the warning even came up, and felt a little disrespected and dismayed when WikiDon posted the copyvio notice (and his rather harsh tone in subsequent postings on my talk page). I come from a business administration background having been a restaurant assistant manager and shift supervisor, and my training tells me to properly investigate any issue before making any judgments. WikiDon improperly investigated the situation, and went on the attack both on my talk page and the KW article without giving my userpage a glance, nor that notice on the bottom of the Pacific History page on my website.

I apologize for the rant and babble, but that's part of why I got frustrated. I strive to contribute to the best of my abilities, and when another user goes on the attack without ever getting to know me first, I tend to get a little upset and go on the defensive.

Anywho, that's my rant and babble in a nutshell. Thanks for listening Srosenow 98 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your frustration. :) It's obvious that you were trying to comply with policy, to get the information out here. It's quite probable that the article that inspired you would have created problems if it had been noticed. I wish you could remember it, too, so that I could just make sure that the "i"s are dotted and "t"'s crossed. I've been donating most of my Wikipedia time to addressing the backlog at WP:CP for some time now (I'm sure it feels like a much longer time than it is!), and I know that on my end it sometimes feels like pointless hoop-jumping, but it's worth it if the end-result is a copyright-violation free website. :)
I'm not sure from what you say here if you realize that you're releasing control of your words anyway when you post them on Wikipedia. Under the terms of GFDL, anything you contribute here may be modified or redistributed in any way, commercially or otherwise, so long as authorship credit is maintained. You may realize that; it may just be the text on the website, not the derivative version, that you don't want to release under GFDL. Forgive me if I'm pointing out something you already know quite well; I just wanted to be sure that was clear. :)
If you're comfortable releasing the derivative version on Wikipedia, then it should be sufficient to just add to the note already on your website something along the lines of "In December, 2007, I authored a condensed and derivative form of this for the Kenworth article on Wikipedia. That condensed and derivative form is irrevocably released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (I would make "Kenworth" link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenworth&oldid=178070103, which is the version you contributed.) If you want to be particularly careful to protect the original, you might expand it to note that "The version displayed here remains under full protection of US copyright."
If you decide to go that way, just let me know, and I'll make a note at the talk page, remove the copyright notice and mark the matter resolved. :)
Alternatively, you can just write to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. The boilerplate recommended here is available at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Given the uniqueness of your situation, I would explain in the letter that you are the author of the website, that you have incorporated text directly from the website, but that you don't wish to release the version on your website under GFDL, even though you are comfortable releasing the version on Wikipedia.
That communication I'm not authorized to handle. Only certain Wikimedia volunteers and employees can address that. General observation suggests it would be cleared within a week--sometimes within a day or two. Someone from the committee would make a note on the article's talk page that the situation was resolved, and then the copyright notice would be removed and the issue marked resolved.
I'm sorry that you felt the other user was rude and didn't give the matter proper attention. I agree that his communications with you on your talk page don't fit in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Sometimes we have users who are trying blatantly to get around copyright laws to get material on Wikipedia, but this is obviously not the case with you. While it might be desirable to further clarify the situation here, it's apparent that you're operating in good faith and attempting to make a valuable contribution to the article. So, as one of Wikipedia's many unpaid and (not particularly important) representatives, please allow me to apologize that you were made to feel that way and instead to thank you for your contribution. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I re-edited that text on the Pacific History section to reflect the advice you've given. If I need to make any changes, let me know. Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that could possibly fail to do it. :) I've removed the copyvio notice, and I'm off to mark this matter "resolved" at the copyright problem notice board. Thank you so much, and, again, I'm sorry that the experience was so frustrating for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Hey, I've just seen you around CSD discussions and on Commons and wanted to say hi. I know how discouraging speedy deletion work can be, when you earn the ire of all those whose articles you smight, but I think you're doing a great job and really giving articles a chance wherever you can. Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything I can ever do to help. :-) Dcoetzee 19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :D Occasionally there is ire, but fortunately most folks are reasonable once the situation is explained. I do very much appreciate the peer approval, and the door swings both ways. My talk page is (almost) always open. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NRLCA

You undid part of my entry on the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. The part you took out was the union constitution. The constitution is a public document, and there was no reason to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There are two reasons to remove it. First of all, the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association displays a prominent copyright notice. In order to print material verbatim from them, we would either need for them to display a release under the terms of GFDL on their website or to give permission to the Wikimedia foundation for this material to be released under the GFDL. It is important that the release be compatible with our license, as hosting material on Wikipedia not only gives Wikipedia permission to display it, but it also gives our users the right to modify and re-use it, commercially or otherwise, as long as proper credit is given. There is more information about how to follow up on those in the links at the article's talk page, under donating materials. However, even if Wikipedia were assured of permission to run this material, it would likely be inappropriate for inclusion. While a section briefly describing the constitution may be appropriate, particularly if it touches on especially important points, reproducing the entire constitution unbalances the article and ascribes the constitution undue importance (please see the guideline on "undue weight"). Please remember that the primary purpose of an article on Wikipedia is to give information to a general readership. While specialized detail is important to some readers, it is far more appropriate to provide an off-Wikipedia link to such details as an organization's constitution than to host it here, as suggested at Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. While I have no doubt that last link is referring more to national constitutions than organizational constitutions, it actually mentions constitutions specifically as something that should be hosted elsewhere.
If you have duplicated text in this article from any other source, please identify it. Unless it is from a source that has a license compatible with Wikipedia's, it needs to be altered or removed for legal reasons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Point made; fair enough. I went through my previous existing article and reentered the images that I had posted within the constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't intend to remove images, and my apologies that I did so. The section was long enough that I didn't realize I had. With regards to the question about other material, please do let us know if you've used other sources for sentences and phrases. As I mentioned at the article talk page, it concerns me that there are phrases like "an effective legislative program in the Congress to promote and protect the interests of rural carriers" which are clearly identifiable from other sources. (Since leaving that note, I've realized that this is the probable source for that text, though I'm not sure. It does, again, carry the copyright notice.) Wikipedia has to take copyright concerns very seriously, both for the protection of copyright holders and of the project itself. Material does need to be rewritten in our own words to avoid these concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this; I'm working on it. I appreciate the tone you take in correcting me. It's refreshing conpared to some of the other Wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You've certainly dedicated an impressive amount of effort to that article! And I'm sorry if you've felt "bitten" by some of the comments that have come your way. New contributors are important, and I think it's too easy to forget how steep the learning curve can be. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Andew Wilson (theologian)

Hi, Xenocidic recommended you as an administrator who would be a good, neutral, experienced party to consult in a contentious AfD. Currently, the subj. article is reverting versions repeatedly, although I don't believe any editor to have been in 3RR violation yet. Further, it has been observed that positions have solidified, which I believe substantially true, and the time for the AfD has expired, yet it not been closed. There are five involved editors: myself and Exucmember support a version of the article which has as much RS infomation as possible about Andrew Wilson's major work, World Scripture. Hrafn, Crusio, and DJ Clayworth favor deleting that information for various reasons, including that it is a coatrack, not neutral/spam, and fails to demonstrate sufficient notability. I believe all parties would benefit from an admin without any previous involvement in the topic to look at the issues and revisions involved, render an appropriate judgement, and close the AfD. Would you be willing to do this for us? Thanks!

--Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! I'm connected. I wanted to note very quickly that my internet connection has been iffy for a few days. I'm looking into it. I may not be able to help today, not only for poor internet connection but because it is a holiday weekend in these parts and I am preparing for guests, but if I don't think I can address it immediately I'll try to leave a note to let you know. :) If I feel I can tease consensus out of it, and I can't do it today, I will try to do it (if somebody doesn't first) as soon as I can. Unfortunately, it can take me quite a long time to read through and evaluate these things. I once spent two hours on a single AfD! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
All right, I have looked at it, and I see that it is indeed quite contentious, and it looks like it could benefit from swift handling. I have limited time, as I said, and my connection is spotty at the moment, so I'm looking for another administrator who will be good, neutral and experienced to take a look at it. :) In addition to my limited time at the moment, I am a little concerned that even your neutral summary above might seem to bring my neutrality into question. For that reason, I think it would be better for an uninvolved party to ask. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I did my best to set aside my participation and present the arguments neutrally, but I would be a poor judge of my own success. I appreciate your looking into it, and thank you for your decision to seek another administrator's assistance. I am simply seeking A neutral, experienced AfD administrator, and you were simply the first one I was told to seek out. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you presented your case. :) I think the danger is that when an AfD is contentious, it is particularly necessary to avoid the appearance of starting with a side. If perchance you do approach somebody else, I think perhaps you would do better to eliminate your synthesis--the bit of "There are five...demonstrate sufficient notability" and just let the admin read the debate. My first thought didn't pan out--admin on wikibreak--so I am moving on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Got your message, MRG, and I've just completed closing the AFD. I would appreciate your opinion on my close (for example, if you were going to delete the article...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article on T.J. Parsell

Hello: My name is T.J. Parsell. You deleted a page that mentioned me and my book, Fish: A Memoir of a Boy in a Man's Prison. Why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.124.11 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article T. J. Parsell was deleted for copyright problems. It was copied completely from this source, which carries a copyright notice and hence is not usable as a source of sentences or phrases on Wikipedia without an assertion of permission. (Note that a lack of copyright notice is not sufficient to clear permission for that; the material needs to display a license compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL.) A tag was placed on the article notifying interested parties how to either (a) arrange for the release of material or (b) revise the material to fall in line with copyright policies. The tag indicates that Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. However, while the article was tagged on May 28th, due to a backlog at the copyright investigation page it was not actually deleted until nearly a month later, on June 26th. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry; but I don't understand. The source you are referencing is my own website. So where is the copyright problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjparsell (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article deleted was created by user:Howdidyouknow, who claims her name is "Stephanie" and hence is very unlikely to be you. :) Even if she had claimed to be the copyright holder, though, we would have asked her to produce evidence of that, as Wikipedia has no user identification requirements for log-in, and any user can create an account under any name. Of use in such situations are the directions for "using copyrighted works from others", if contributors are not the copyright holder of the material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if they are. If you wanted to include the material, for instance, aside from the potential problems of "conflict of interest", you'd need to go through one of the steps at "donating copyrighted materials" to confirm that you have authority to release the information here and understand that you are releasing it by GFDL, for modification or reuse (even commercial) so long as attribution is retained. This is commonly done through a note on the original website or a letter to the communications committee, as set out there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Stale case at WP:CP,

Does it appear in archive.org at all?Geni 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah no I see it doesn't.Geni 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit tentative in dealing with it myself because I don't read Russian, so I can't comb through their FAQs to see if this is addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Astronaut

I just saw the history of Wikipedia:Copyright problems, you really did a great job in clearing a lot of the backlog there. Therefore....

For your impressive work working in Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I, Garion96, award you the Public Domain Astronaut.

Garion96 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :D It's my goal to clear out that backlog, and I plan to keep pounding at it until it's done. Today or tomorrow maybe? Depends entirely on how complicated the things are ahead of me. Revising material can sometimes take me a long time. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Safesquid

Hi. I see you just "notability" tagged the newly re-created SafeSquid article. I was working with the creator briefly and think he found a couple of reliable sources after the previous article was speedied for being a copy-vio. The copy-vio issues are also now resolved, by the way, so I'm not sure why the creator added the GFDL tag. Anyway, I think the article does (BARELY) meet notability guidelines so I've removed your tag. I won't complain if you decide to put it up for deletion, though, since I think the article would benefit from closer inspection by a wider range of editors. Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not putting it up for deletion. As I explained to him at his talk page, the tag is to encourage the addition of reliable sources to verify its notability. Currently, I don't see that the article makes any real assertion of notability, and I believe that pending the inclusion of reliable, secondary sources that reference the product, the tag should remain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, am confused. I didn't believe an assertion of notability was necessary, merely signficant third party coverage. There are a number of third party references provided, of which I think two are non-trivial and sufficiently reliable - although only barely as I previously mentioned. I also wasn't aware that the notability tag helped bring other editors to the page as you suggest - does it automatically put the article in a category that other editors might be watching? If so, feel free to re-add it as this article needs attention. What it doesn't need is a tag that might just put people off when the article's only starting out, and WP:Note is a serious enough flaw in an article that it might have that effect and that effect alone.
PS I'm watching this page if you want to comment further. Ultimately, though, I'm not bothered about the article - I'm just trying to help a relatively inexperienced editor do a better job and think he's made enough progress with the article that it deserves slightly less harsh treatment. GDallimore (Talk) 14:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the notability tag puts the article into Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Looking at the sources cited, the reference here and here look trivial to me, especially the latter, which is one name in a list. This is not a WP:RS for purposes of notability, as it is a wiki and a how-to-guide and does not address notability. These sources don't look independent, as they seem to be connected to the product. Which two did you think were non-trivial and sufficiently notable? Perhaps I'm missing something.
I agree that the notability tag can be intimidating to new contributors, which is why I explained its function at the user's talk page. It's not my desire to "bite" a good faith contributor. Did you feel that my note was unfriendly to him or her in some way? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all unfriendly, just that notability objections can be most disheartening. Please don't take anything I've said as a criticism of you. I'm just trying to strike a balance. As for the two sources, I felt "thejournal" gave just enough coverage to be non-trivial. The second link was this one, which seems to have gone missing in the final article... I'll add it in. GDallimore (Talk) 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't worried so much about your being overly critical of me, though. :) I am highly concerned with being civil, and sometimes something comes across as less friendly than intended. If there's a risk I come across that way, I'd like to know! The new source is not really applicable to notability, either, as it is not independent of the subject but an announcement by a business partner, I'm afraid. I do think it's inclusion is probably a good thing in the article, though. As long as someone is actively working on finding new sources, I don't feel like the tag is that important. Hopefully, more will be located that can more obviously meet that "widespread notability" thing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the first ref is also quoted by David Burt (filtering advocate) (Here), who is an authority on the subject (content filtering) and also product manager at Microsoft. Do you think that this ref would more appropriate? Meanwhile, I am also looking for better refs Sachinpurohit (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

←Hi. :) The reliability of the article isn't in question; the problem is that the coverage of this specific product is light. Generally speaking, notability of products is affirmed by widespread, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. It is the most substantial reference I see. I don't think that you need Burt's quoting that article, but I do think that the article would benefit from additional references to verify that non-trivial, widespread coverage exists. You don't necessarily need to look online for these. If this product has been reviewed in magazines or newspapers, that can also be indicated. We have a whole list of citation templates that can help you format those, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hadi mirsepasi

Other than the intro, this entire page is a copyvio of the English version of http://www.hadimirsepasi.com/biography/ Should I tag it as db-copyvio? (if yes, can you just delete it?) J.delanoygabsadds 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Without the copyvio, there was insufficient material for the article to remain, which fits well within G12: "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving." If I were tagging a page of that sort, though, I'd leave a note at the talk page explaining that, and I would do it in a friendly and constructive manner in case the creator decided to address it. :) (Not that I'm suggesting you would do it uncivilly under any circumstances; what I mean is that your language would differ if you were communicating solely to the reviewing admin, and I think it's always good to keep in mind that creators and less experienced contributors who review the text may not understand it in that case.) I'm off to run an errand! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That guy created the same page on the Persian Wikipedia, using a direct copy/paste of the Persian version (I love how that rhymes :D ) of his biography on his website. I don't know a word in Persian, and Google's translator can't do Persian. So I just clicked on the interwiki link on WP:AN and made a post in English. I hope someone there can read it. Now I have a headache because Persian is written from right to left, so typing English is...... fun... And it took me six tries to figure out how to start a new section on their AN. Wow, I love English.... J.delanoygabsadds 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! I know that right to left thing. Sometimes even pasting an article title at Articles for Translation here gets all munged up. :D I also know how disorienting it is how to drop into an unfamiliar wiki. I left a note at commons the other day, and it was similar but yet so different that it was a "through the looking glass" feeling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw you add a comment to his page after you used User:Moonriddengirl/carticle, so I added another parameter to the template to allow you to customize the ending, similar to how you can with the messages on WP:UTM. You can look at the template doc to see my changes. I also tested it in the sandbox, and added an explanation with it. Here is the version with my test in it. If you have any questions about it, just ask. Thanks again for your help. J.delanoygabsadds 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. I don't know how I got along without you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's no problem at all. I love working with stuff like that, and your template gives me a good reason to mess around. Also, what were you talking about with the second part of your message? Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm afraid I don't know what you meant. :/ (feel free to reply here) J.delanoygabsadds 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Since you had edited the template recently, I presumed you were watching it. Should know better than to assume that, given how widely I contribute and how relatively little I watch! {{smile}} has had a strange addition recently. I don't know why it was placed there, but it seems to have been requested in April. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Template:Smile. OK, that is weird. Wow.
Anyways, I dislike having a huge watchlist. Right now, I just watch the Huggle warning templates, the pages in my userspace, AN, ANI, and several admins' talk pages. (including yours, so I can stalk...) If I'm in a conversation with someone, I usually watchlist their talk page if they prefer that I reply there, but after the conversation is over, I just remove it. J.delanoygabsadds 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I went on ahead and removed it. It seems to have been added without real consensus. I tend to stop stalking people after a while, too. I've got a list of articles I monitor for vandalism or other concerns. Currently, I have 508 pages on my watchlist, excluding talk pages. I'm thinking I need to do a cleanup soon. :D (Some of these are dead pages I watch against recreation.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Beat me to it! I was going through the history, and while I did that, you removed it! On the subject of watchlists, I have only 84 pages watched (excluding talk pages), and if you take away all the Huggle templates, I only have 45! I guess that's kind of ironic, considering how much vandalism I fight, but it is also a testament to how powerful Huggle is. I wonder if Gurch realized that, with one stroke, he would forever change the balance of power between the good guys and the bad guys here. I mean, if there are 6 people huggling at once, they can stop >90% of vandalism no matter how bad it gets. Add the bots, Twinkle, VP, popups, and old-school fighters, I would say that less than 1% of vandalism makes it through if enough hugglers are on. J.delanoygabsadds 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) (I love what this conversation would seem like if you didn't know what WP:HUG redirects to...)

←LOL! Well, that's always the way it goes when jargon enters. :D I've never used huggle. I use Twinkle, and I used it quite a lot in the days before my adminship, when I focused a good bit more on vandalism. I don't know how huggle differs, really, but I gather it must, because I've caught glimpses of some controversy related to it. (Not sure what or why; I haven't paid close attention.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was working - anyways, Huggle is like Twinkle, but different. When Iridescent first tried Huggle, s/he said Twinkle is like Huggle the same way a spear is like a machine gun. I have to agree. Using Huggle, I made almost 40,000 edits in three months. I once made almost 1000 edits in a day. Iridescent once made 21 edits in one minute. It's really hard to describe what Huggle is. You pretty much have to try it to believe how powerful it is. It takes most people a minimum of two weeks to learn to control it, and some people never learn. If you want, I can tell you what went on with the controversy. J.delanoygabsadds 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Take your time. :) I'd love to hear, when it's convenient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Notice I used the past tense (i.e. I was working)! Anyways, after hitting save on this, I'll start a new section below this one. J.delanoygabsadds 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopkins

It's my impression that the data in the various logs is insufficient to reconstruct what you and i did on Hopkins (TV series), so i'm vague about my exact thrust, and am focused on my repeated impression that most eds ignore the template's directions (once before and once after my work, in this case). If you can mention anything unconstructive that i did (besides my futile attempt to inhibit another removal by leaving trash behind), and perhaps a tutorial for what an admin should do when the subsequent edits are substantial enuf for attribution to be meaningful, i'd be grateful.
--Jerzy•t 05:38 & 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Based on your edit summary, I'm thinking perhaps you might have been very sleepy, because you lost me. :D (And I know the feeling. I'm up earlier than I want to be in my part of the world.) I'll take a look at the article and see if I can piece it together. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. That one. :) Most eds do indeed ignore the template's directions. I've been on a mission to clean WP:CP, and I see it misused more often than not. :/
The problem we ran into with that one is that the IP editor who established a copyvio clean article really just duplicated the one before the copyvio was introduced, here. Our contributors continue to own copyright to their material; they've just granted use of it so long as we acknowledge that the work is theirs. Because of that, we can't delete this one and then run that one, as we'd be in the strange position of violating copyright ourselves. And probably the only reason I know this is because I've worked a bit with merging articles, which has made me quite sensitive to the terms of GFDL.
In a case like that, it's possible to just delete all edits following the introduction of the copyright, as set out at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. As an admin, when you run into an unambiguous case like that, you don't even need to list it at WP:CP. The problem is that quite often people have built on the copyvio version. If there have been subsequent edits and the copyright violation can reasonably be cut out of the article, we can remove it and explain in edit summary what we've done. I also leave a warning to the contributor ({{uw-copyright}}) and place a note on the talk page. I've got a template I use for that purpose, since I've been doing a lot of these: User:Moonriddengirl/cclean. If you should ever want to, you'd be more than welcome to use it. :) The copyvio can remain in the article's history, as long as we remove it if the copyright holder requests. (Now I can't remember where that is. I wish Wikipedia had an index. :/ Oh, wait. Duh! It's right on the WP:CP page, in the yellow box: "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.")
Anyway, forgive me if I've linked the obvious, and if I'm unclear about something, please let me know. As I said, it's early, and I'm not on my full game yet myself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that is exactly the kind of, uh, remedial orientation, that i was hoping for. (Yellow box? How could i have missed a yellow box?? I'll go study it; what you say had seemed to me like a like a logical approach in view of GFDL, fair use, and the "well, you could-'a' said something" principle, but IANALP. I always hope for such a talisman, but usually dread to go looking for one in light of the baroque paths so often produced by our marvelous synergy of many eyeballs and benign neglect.)
    I surely don't need another project (let alone at this moment), but i have usually pursued likely copyvios at least to the point of verifying and tagging, and i think i'll now stop, uh, pretending (by tagging them) not to be one of those "admin" people that {{copyvio}} talks about. Just getting beyond slapping on an imposing tl that usually gets violated by editors and that admins, casually observed, seem to ignore, feels like a valuable step. Thanks again!
    --Jerzy•t 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Eros Ramazzotti

Hi and sorry for not answering before. To be quite honest, I was here yesterday already but the page is a bit confusing as I didn't find any tab for "new section".. :) Anyway, the copyright problem is solved at least temporarily, the copied part was removed a while ago. Thanks for looking into it. JdeJ (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and for addressing the problem in the first place. :) (The "new section" thing is a + mark here.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile

SJP Chat has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you! And back at you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The story of Huggle

(mostly copy/pasted from when someone else asked me about Huggle, with the links to the AN discussion provided by Iridescent)


Huggle started as an anti-vandalism tool that Gurch made for his own personal use. Apparently (I wasn't vandal-fighting at the time, but I have seen some old conversations...) people asked him how on earth he was reverting and warning so fast. When he told them, they apparently asked if they could use it, and he started distributing it around via email. I believe that other people than Gurch started showing up with Huggle between last December and the middle of last January, but I am not sure of the exact details. Gurch then left on extended wikibreak, and Huggle was distributed to trusted users upon request via email from other users who already had it. Thus the hugglers were a small group. This was the case when I first got Huggle near the end of February. For a while, this status quo remained in place. Then Gurch returned (as Gurchzilla at first, later he started using his Gurch account again) and started expanding Huggle's capabilities and, to some degree, its speed. I seem to remember a push to let Huggle go "live", that is, anyone who wanted to could use it, without having to download it, just like Twinkle.

Eventually, Huggle did go live, and many, many editors began using it. Unfortunately, it takes a steady mind and a lot of vandal-fighting experience to handle Huggle properly, and many of the new users simply were not experienced enough. It was bad. I mean, really bad. People were filing reports to AIV for trivial things like typing "hi" into a page, people reverted anything that even remotely resembled vandalism, even edits that were clearly not vandalism, like good-faith attempts to change American English spellings to British English spellings (honour instead of honor, yogurt instead of yoghurt, etc.). Eventually, it got bad enough that Gurch started a thread on the administrators' noticeboard to see if people wanted him to ban Huggle completely. It was eventually decided that the tool wasn't the problem, it was the inexperienced users who were misusing Huggle's power. Administrators were encouraged to swiftly deal with any abuse or misuse of the tool. (by blanking and protecting problem users' huggle.css) Recently, acting on the advice he got primarily from Iridescent, Gurch made it so that to be able to use Huggle, you have to have either +rollback or +sysop. That really got things under control for the most part, so Huggle is not nearly as big of a problem as it was.

If you are interested in reading the AN thread, it is here. The previous discussion referred to in the AN thread is somewhere in third talk page archive, but the section link s/he gave in the original post doesn't make sense to me. J.delanoygabsadds 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoygabsadds 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm such a stalker. The link that J.Del...is trying to post (regarding Iridescent's page) is here. Butting out...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Keeper! Thanks again for handling that AfD. :D I had no idea that the whole Huggle thing got so involved. Glad Iridescent and Gurch came up with a response to the problem! I probably saw it at AN at some point, but I tend to skim/skip stuff that draws a lot of attention (usually because it means somebody is already handling it--I'm drawn to "lonely" incidents). So, it's a speed thing, mostly, that makes it so powerful? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's ridiculously fast! I only know this second hand, I'e never installed it myself. But what I've heard, it only takes 6 or so humans, using huggle, to revert 90% of vandalism that comes in. Profoundly effective. It is the tool that Wikipedia has been longing for, as we (collectively) have never been able to keep up with the vandals on our 2 million + articles. Profoundly effective! I'm very glad, by the way, that only editors that are in good standing, and +sysop or +rollback approved, are able to access Huggle. A much needed additiion to the script. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't quite grasp how it could go any faster than Twinkle. It seems like human limitations would factor in. But it must be so, or there wouldn't have been so much excitement. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, download it and fire it up. You will not believe it is possible to revert that fast. J.delanoygabsadds 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

←I'm a little scared to. As you know, technology is not my thing. It sounds like it could run away with me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm on your side with that. I've never downloaded it, mostly because I'm terrified of it. I've seen it grossly abused, but 99% of the time, I've seen it be insanely faster/more effective than Twinkle. Keeping in mind that you can remove it if you don't like it, try it. I haven't yet. If you do, let me know? I'm at the same "deer in the headlights" moment that you are right now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I may. :) I'm nearly finished with my current self-imposed project of clearing out the backlog at WP:CP. Time consuming venture, that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)It's really quite simple to use, I find that you just have to click a few buttons, you can't really mess up unless you revert content that is not vandalism... and I know you know what vandalism is! ;) Knowing what these buttons do is the main key IMO. I also believe it is so fast because it uses the recent changes feed with nearly no lag. (Compared to what MiszaBot does in the vandalism channel.) Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec again)I too was very iffy on using it, but I got so tired of being beat to the revert that I had to try it! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(about 10 e/c's) It's not that bad for an experienced user. What Huggle does is scans recent changes (or the recent changes IRC feed) and sends the diffs from IPs and user who are not on its whitelist to hugglers for review. So all we have to do is keep hitting the spacebar to scan recent changes for actual vandals. Reverting and warning vandals is as easy as hitting the "Q" key. It is not a hard to use, it is hard to master. You should be fine, because you have quite a bit of experience vandal-fighting with Twinkle, and (from what I can see) you are not really planning on using it a lot. If you do try it, make sure you go to System>Options and set Huggle to scan all the namespaces; by default it only scans the article space. J.delanoygabsadds 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
All right. You guys have convinced me. I'll give it a shot. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me know how it goes, please? I've still not been able to summon the courage to try it myself....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec AGAIN LOL)Great! Now enough yellowish/orangeish "You have new messages" bars. I shall let you work in peace! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I will, Keeper. And, KOS, the distraction is welcome. I'm trying to track down when an image was removed from PUI in July of 2007, and their "records" at that time weren't always clear. Oi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a go

"Powerful" is definitely the right word! I'm still a but stunned, actually. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but seeing as I'm mentioned... I cannot disagree more with "If you do try it, make sure you go to System>Options and set Huggle to scan all the namespaces; by default it only scans the article space". Gurch set that as the default for a damn good reason; in my capacity as the unofficial Scourge of the Inappropriate Use of Automated Tools I've taken Hugglers' toys away from them more often for inappropriately reverting IP posts to talkpages, Help, sandboxes etc than for any other reason. If you're sure you're going to check every edit carefully, I'd agree that you should probably include templates and Wikipedia-space in the namespace list; anything else and you run the risk of issuing automated vandalism notices to good-faith new users who aren't quite sure what they're doing. – iridescent 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems like excellent advice. If it's defaulted by Gurch, it's because he knows exactly what he's doing. If/when I ever try huggle, I'll be sure to heed this advice myself. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify (MRG & Keep, I know you understand, but this is for the benefit of your TPSs); if I go to George W. Bush and post "stupid asshole", that's vandalism and a {{uw-huggle2}} warning is appropriate; if I go to User talk:Keeper76 and post "stupid asshole", that might be uncivil, but it's not vandalism. – iridescent 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you go to User talk:Keeper76 and post "stupid asshole", I suspect I probably deserved it, so yes you are right, it's not vandalism :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! People. You crack me up. :) I like the fact that Huggle allows you to leave other warnings, like test warnings. For me, the biggest drawback is that it's in its own window. I often like to evaluate the history of the article and the contribution history of the editor when I respond to vandalism. And I actually ducked out of the window altogether a couple of times to track something down and once to speedy delete a page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(this is mostly to Iridescent) The reason why I told MRG to change it to search all the namespaces is because I assumed that, being an admin and a very experienced user, she would not knee-jerk revert everything that seems remotely close to vandalism. I revert quite a bit of vandalism that is not in the article space. I am much more lenient on talk pages than articles, but get into the userspace or (heaven forbid) user talk space, and more than 75% of non-whitelisted edits are vandalism, usually retaliation for warnings. If you want me to remove my posting of the fact that Huggle does not search all namespaces by default. (Per WP:BEANS, in case the Kiddy Kabal finds this page) I will, but I fail to see why an experienced user (especially an admin) would have any problem controlling themselves on talk pages or userpages. Basically, the only time I revert a talk page (of any namespace except user talk) is when someone blanks/almost blanks the page or if they post random vulgarities/obscenities with no context. On user talk pages, I remove direct personal attacks/page blankings/almost blankings, but nothing else. MRG and Keeper would be fine using Huggle on full power. J.delanoygabsadds 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I could see how it would be a problem with an inexperienced user--there is quite a sense of speed to it. I, however, would do my best not to revert anything that I would not revert in ordinary circumstances. :) Less, actually, since I couldn't easily view the history. The biggest problems I encountered was that one of the editors also using it was leaving no warnings, which disturbs me. I've had a look at his userpage, and I see that he's been requested to warn multiple times but persists in grandscale reversions without doing so. I'm not sure how that's handled.
I'm curious as to what Huggle does when a user is full-up on warnings. Does it prompt you to file at AIV? Does it automatically file on your behalf? I could look at the documentation, but I'm lazy and figure you know. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If a user already has a level four warning, Huggle automatically files a report to AIV. (Here is an example. Huggle will sometimes extend the report if the vandal is reverted again after a final warning) I do not know what Huggle does if it detects the +sysop bit when it checks user rights. I think it prompts you to block, but from every admin I know who uses Huggle, I would not recommend blocking from within Huggle. You should probably hit "O" or click on the window icon next to the green navigation buttons and open the vandal's talk page to check things out before blocking. J.delanoygabsadds 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, most definitely I would not block from within Huggle. :) I don't even use Twinkle to delete pages. Thanks for the info. It's an interesting program. It certainly is powerful! I think if I'd had this when I first started fighting vandalism, though, I might never have become an administrator. My article building edits were hard to find by some responders even though (imho) there were plenty of them. With the speed granted by Huggle, the balance would have been even more skewed! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you mean. I probably have between 5000 and 7500 edits that are not reverts/warnings/AIV reports, but you would not be able to find them easily among my ~52000 total edits. I think that my next RFA (when/if it comes) will be a lot of fun :/ J.delanoygabsadds 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
May I recommend you make it easy on future evaluators by keeping a section for your substantial article contributions somewhere on your userpage? This will make things much easier. Trust me. (I eventually split mine off). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing. I only have one major "real" contribution to the mainspace (and it failed its GAN spectacularly). I have never liked writing, and I probably never will. Basically what I do here is fight vandalism and patrol the noticeboards. (and stalk people's talk pages :D ) People who do similar things have not done particularly well at RFA lately. J.delanoygabsadds 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

←No, that would have been an issue even in the ancient days of 9 months ago when I ran. Hmmm. Well, I guess you either run on a platform (if you do run again) of "I think I'd be good for the project anyway" or you look for other ways to contribute to the mainspace. Have you considered pitching in at Category:Articles that need to be wikified or Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage? Also potentially beneficial, Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which calls on judgment and analysis skills but doesn't require that you be into writing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess my only chance is if RFA-ers make an exception. If I did started writing a lot, I would only be doing it to sway opinion so that I could become an admin. (Who would I be kidding? Certainly not myself...) Like I said, I really don't like writing. The "notice" at the top of my userpage is, by and large, an accurate description of my mentality (although obviously some of the specifics are tongue-in-cheek). I just can't get "with" sitting down and writing. I correct typos/grammar if I see problems while randomly browsing, fix poor formatting, occasionally upload and add images, and once in a while, do some stub tagging on Special:Newpages, but that's about it. Even though improving articles would make this a better encyclopedia regardless of my personal motives, I don't want to pass an RFA based on a concerted attempt to pass an RFA. I'd rather fail based on my true self than pass based on a façade. I appreciate the advice, but I just don't think it's right to, quote, "become" an active writer just so I can pass an RFA, and then never write anything again. (because that is what would happen) Please don't take this as though I am brushing you off; reading the preview, that is what it seems like, but it is not intended to be like that :/ J.delanoygabsadds 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel brushed off. :) Let me say that I think there's nothing at all wrong with making it clear what you're volunteering to do and stating flatly that you are playing to your strengths. Every volunteer is valuable, and a volunteer who knows his abilities and lives up to his commitments is a lot better than one who mis-sells himself or promises other than he intends to deliver. I also believe that there is plenty of room in the janitor closet for non-article writers, as long as they understand and appreciate the qualities that make the project work. I certainly think you do.
That said, branching into other means of contributing to mainspace remains possible, even if writing is not your strength. That's why I suggested Category:Articles that need to be wikified first, as this doesn't require writing, but only the addition of [[ and ]] and changing html markup to wiki markup. :) Please don't feel criticized by that. I believe that vandalism fighting is in itself a valuable contribution to mainspace. Indeed, I think it's essential, as without it there's no quality control at all. I'm just responding to your note about "real" contributions to mainspace. There are other ways to contribute than to compose. And I would not suggest you do anything just for the sake of passing an RfA, but it's valid to demonstrate that concerns about preparation for the job do not apply and that you are, in fact, quite well rounded.
It's also valid to move on a platform of "This is what I do", though. That's why I mentioned it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I really appreciate your advice and your help with my various questions/requests. I'll think about it, and who knows? I may find another calling other than vandal-patrol. J.delanoygabsadds 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Sun (sculpture)

Hi, I saw you had deleted this for licensing problems. In the deleted version, were there any useful external sources? If so, would you mind dropping the URLs/books/etc on my talk? Thanks! rootology (T) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Obnoxious listeners

This page was originally tagged by Corensearchbot as a suspected copyvio of http://www.obnoxiouslisteners.com/about. I looked at the link, and other than the intro, the page was a direct copy/paste. Was there enough similarity there for me to tag it as db-copyvio rather than db-web, as it ended up being tagged? What is the "threshold" where an article becomes a copyvio rather than a notability problem? J.delanoygabsadds 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The question to ask is whether there's non-infringing content on the page worth keeping. In this case, there's not. I would have deleted it as a "blatant copyright infringement and non-notable web." This is particularly important because (a) it warns administrators not to userfy on request, and (b) it warns creators that both of these were serious problems. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You know, I'm now officially THE stalker of this page[8]. Copper had four months of a head start, and I've still almost caught up to him J.delanoygabsadds 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Seems there ought to be a barnstar in that! You are always welcome. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto hide text on post of template

We are nearing 48 hours since posting at the template talks, with only positive feed back. I would say your are free to go play and when you are ready, make the changes live. Jeepday (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you assume I can do this. :D I'll take a look at it at some point today. (Late start this morning.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And you did wonderfully, There was never a doubt in my mind. Jeepday (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You have more faith in me than I do,then. My first effort didn't work, but once I figured out where to put the <div id="copyvio" style="display:none;">, it came up okay. When I start seeing strings of text like "div id" and "style=", I break out in hives. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorising Commons images

In reference to the question you posed on User talk:Xenocidic: according to Wikipedia:Commons#Categorization, we're not supposed to categorise Commons images on Wikipedia. But I don't know how up to date this how-to is. Cheers. --Salvador Barley (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I was just starting the "slogging through stuff looking for answers" process. You've saved me a ton of time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clueing us in =) –xenocidic (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. --Salvador Barley (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Calintaan

Hello,

Thanks for the comments and the edits on the History of Calintaan. We highly appreciate it.

Allow me to explain the "we" in the previous sentence. We are a group of Occidental Mindoro history enthusiasts. We are based in different parts of the Philippines. One member of our group, Mr. Rudy Candelario, did painstaking research on the history of our province (Occidental Mindoro) and his research was published by the Hiyas Press, Inc. and copyrighted by the Occidental Mindoro Historical Society (OMHS), to which he is a member.

The OMHS has become inactive. We, however, are continuing what it has started. One of the things we are doing is to disseminate the research of Mr. Candelario via the net. The website where you found a somewhat similar article on Calintaan, belongs to our group. We, however, think that his research will get more widely read if we place it in Wikipedia. He, of course, has agreed to this.

I now understand that this (uploading Mr Candelario's work in Wikipedia) violates Wikipedia's policy on notability, as it is a product of original research. I now understand that for us to be able to upload Mr Candelario's work on the history of our province, we have to cite his work (meaning, we write another article quoting his published work).

I have read Wikipedia's policy on "reliable sources." And to my understanding, Mr Candelario's work is a reliable source, having been published by a notable group in our province. His research is also being used by scholars who are doing post-graduate courses on subjects related to our province. But I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

We would wait for your comments before proceeding with our next steps.

Thank you very much.

Sikatuna sunset (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. There are a couple of problems here that need to be addressed. The first is probably the easiest: in order to use any of the language directly from Mr. Candelario's work, we need verification of permission. This is because Wikipedia does not require proof of identity on account creation, and so we need external proof. This is simple to resolve if the page belongs to your group, as all you need to do is put a note on your website indicating that the text is released according to the terms of the GNU free documentation license. It's important that your note specify that it is released by that license (abbreviated GFDL) or into public domain because when you place text on Wikipedia, you are giving authority to our readers to use or change it in any way they place, including selling it, so long as they give you credit. (That means that Mr. Candelario's work could be put into a book and sold by somebody else, but they could not claim that the work was theirs. They don't have to give Mr. Candelario any of the money they make from selling this information, but they do have to acknowledge him.)
The second concern, as you mention, is that unless Mr. Candelario's work is published, it constitutes original research and is not verifiable by our readers. Since anybody can add material to Wikipedia, the only way that we can try to assure our readers that what they are reading is correct is if we give them exact information necessary to trace down the sources and read them for themselves. No matter how good a researcher he may be (and he certainly seems thorough), we aren't able to verify his work. If Mr. Candelario's work is first published by somebody else--like a magazine or a publishing house that has a reputation for fact checking--then we could incorporate his research without any problem. The question here would be whether your group constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition: " Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Is there anything we could use to verify that your group meets this definition?
The third problem is a relatively minor one, and it relates to your use of the term "we". :) Wikipedia has a one-user, one-account policy. When you have an account that is created to represent a group, you have what we call a "role account". You can read more about those at the Wikimedia page here. Please consider assigning one individual to this account and, if necessary, registering additional accounts for other members of your group. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply.

1] OK we will put a note in the website that the texts there are released under the GNU free documentation license. I will discuss this with our group. I assume it is basically a one-liner placed somewhere in the page, ie "These texts are released under the GNU free documentation license." Please confirm.

2] Mr Candelario's book is of course respected in our province. It is recognized by the Catholic hierarchy there, public officials and prominent residents. Do you need the email addresses of some of these people to check that what he wrote are verifiable? But it has not been published at the national or international scale. I understand perhaps it is easier to just give a name of a reputable publishing outfit, but we do not have this. Does reliable source only apply only to national and international publishing outfits, because people in our province, of course, could be biased in favor of Mr. Candelario's work? Or does this fall under what is called "context?" I mean the facts contained in the book are correct and verifiable (wiki readers can actually still request copies of the book, there are still a few copies left), and any wiki reader could ask prominent people in our province and they will confirm the facts contained in the book. But I guess wiki readers can only contact established publishing houses with dedicated answering services, which certainly people and groups in our province do not have. Would appreciate your further thoughts on this.

3] I understand the one account, one user thingy. Three members of our group have wiki accounts and we were thinking we can share the load of writing. I thought this does not violate anything. But please let me know if you think this is vulnerable to a host of problems.

Thanks again.

Sikatuna sunset (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a one-liner should be sufficient. As long as it specifies the license, there should be no problem. I didn't realize that Mr. Candelario's work had been published--that can make quite a difference. In that case, its reliability rests in its publisher. Presuming that it is a respected publishing house, all you need to do is reference it, using some form of the citation template. It doesn't have to be international or even national in scale; books publishing by university presses--even smaller ones--are generally held in high regard, for instance. The only problem you might have then is if the publishing house does not have an established reputation. At that point, even if it's a published source, it would not be regarded as necessarily a "reliable" one. (But, still, if published, it isn't "original research", as long as all the material presented is in the published sources.) How serious a problem that is depends, honestly, on how controversial the information is. (Are all the other sources in that article published? If so, and these can be cited, than the "original research" tag might no longer be appropriate. It may still apply, though, if those interviews are not part of the publication.)
As far as role accounts go, I thought I was the only Wikipedian who used the term "thingie"! :D If you have different wiki accounts, that shouldn't be a problem. Rather than speak as a group, though, it would be better to speak of yourself in individual terms. One thing you'll want to be very careful about is how you edit articles and how you conduct yourselves in discussions. For example, on Wikipedia we have a rule against "edit warring". If somebody objects to our edits (unless there is compelling policy behind them, concerning say libel or copyright), we're meant to discuss them at article talk pages. Trying to force changes through editing the page is consider disruptive to the point that "reverting" or undoing somebody's edits more than three times in a 24-hour-period will almost certainly result in a block. Given your behavior here, of course, I have absolutely no reason to imagine that you or your group would ever do such a thing, but I have to advise that if you have a "real world" connection, you should consider yourselves in all of your accounts as effectively one user in that regard. In this singular context, WP:TEAMWORK is not a good thing. :) As long as you are clear about your connection and open to input, you should be absolutely fine.
And, again, I see absolutely no reason to doubt you would be. I point it out merely as a safeguard for you, since it's very obvious that you wish to work within policies and guidelines here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience in replying.

All the materials presented were taken from the published source. The publication actually has two versions: Tagalog and English. We - or from now on, should I say I? - are of course using the English version. A colleague wants to work on the Tagalog version, with Tambayan Philippines, where I have also discussed what I am doing with some Wiki editors there.

The interviews were actually footnotes in the published material. I just copied it, and did some rewriting. It seems from what I understand now, what I should do is to write something on the subject (say History of Calintaan) and use in the notes something like: [1]

But I was looking at the History of San Jose (another municipality in Occidental Mindoro), which we did not upload, and there was not even a single note there. There were also some factual mistakes. Pandurucan became a seat of the municipal government in 1910, not 1911, and there are documents to prove this - an executive order signed on April 18, 1910 by Gov Cameroon Forbes, governor general of the Philippines at that time.

In that same page about San Jose, there was mention of Sinaoga, as the site of the first presidencia. I grew up in that island. And no one in that island of less than 30 households knows this fact (if it is a fact). It might be true as the island is strategically located in the middle of Mangarin Bay, which was an important port at that time. But what was the reference used? And why was the article not marked "hey dude, where's your ref?" Or it was there and I just did not see it? Sorry it just confused me.

OK all for now. I will wait for further thoughts from you before proceeding with writing and editing articles on the history of the towns of our province. Again, maraming salamat (thanks a million in Tagalog).

Cheers

Notes

  1. ^ Candelario, Rudy. 2000. History of the Municipalities of Occidental Mindoro. Occidental Mindoro Historical Society. Hiyas Press. Inc.

Sikatuna sunset (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My first Tagalog words! :) Yes, the reference to the publication is what you want. (But, note, that if you're copying from a publication, it's no longer a simple matter of putting a release on a webpage. It becomes much more complicated then to prove permission, as an e-mail needs to be provided by an e-mail addressed associated with the original publication providing permission. You can read a bit about that here. It's a process I'm familiar with, so if you decide to do that, I'll be happy to help you figure it out. But in that case, it would probably be easier to rewrite the text in your own words.)
As far as the other article, people probably haven't noticed. Wikipedia is a big project. (This question comes up often enough at deletion debates that there's even a "FAQ" response: "What about Article X?". In the case of this article, whoever tagged the concerned copyright issues listed it at the copyright problems board. I'm a volunteer there. Since it was listed and we had received no official permission, I had two options in addressing it--either deleting the material or revising it. It was rather time consuming to rewrite it, but it seems preferable to deleting it, in spite of sourcing concerns. I added the "original research" tag because as I was working I realized that many of the sources claimed to be unpublished documents. If somebody had not questioned the copyright status of the article, I would probably never have contributed to it, as I'm sadly unfamiliar with the topic. (I have not had the pleasure of visiting the Philippines.)
In that other article, the way to say, "hey dude, where's your ref?" is to put {{fact}} (brackets and all) right after the unreferenced point. You can also tag it {{dubious}} and explain why at the article's talk page. If it's unsourced, you can even simply remove it, though if the page shows recent activity it can be polite to explain why at the article's talk page. If the whole article is faulty, you can tag it {{refimprove}} or {{Disputed}} (and, with that latter tag, you would explain why at the talk). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I will probably take the rewriting route, to avoid a complicated process.

I've tagged one unreferenced point in the History of San Jose article with {{fact}} as you suggested, and another point with {{dubious}} and will just wait for responses. It seems that article also falls within the Tambayan Philippines project, within Wikipedia.

People in San Jose of course will not rely on Wikipedia to determine what year they will celebrate their 100th foundation anniversary. If they follow that wiki article, they would be celebrating in 1911, not 1910. They would ask the members of the Occidental Mindoro Historical Society. So I guess, Wikipeda is some kind of a big discussion board on facts only, and articles do not really get finalized. Or the rating tells you the level of finality and accurateness of the article? Sorry, the slip of my confusion is showing.

If ever your happy feet get itchy and you suddenly end up in the Pearl of the Orient, we would be happy to be your and family's tour guides. Cheers.....

Sikatuna sunset (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is perpetually unfinished. Wikipedia:About indicates that older articles tend to be more reliable, and this is probably true, but not always. The ratings can help you feel more confident that an article is reliable. Generally, you can trust a "good article", as these have been carefully screened, and I'd feel pretty confident trusting a "featured article", as these go through rigorous scrutiny. Those are roughly about 6,000 articles out of the 2.5 million articles we have. That doesn't mean they're the only ones that are good, but at least you know when you run into one that somebody has looked at it carefully. (The problem being that those articles can be changed in such a way that they're no longer reliable. There are 580 articles that used to be "featured article" that have lost the status. Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia gives some general tips about Wikipedia's strengths and weaknesses, including why it's a good idea to check for yourself to be sure that the sources say what the articles indicate they do. :)
It looks at a glance like Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines is a very active project. That's good! Some of them don't get much activity. Active projects are generally helpful at keeping quality in "their area" higher. It's also a good place to go to discuss problems if you see them in articles related to the region.
Should we ever make it out your way, we'll be sure to look you up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_7&oldid=1136162099"